Method and system for assessing cumulative access entitlements of an entity in a system

ABSTRACT

A method and system is provided for assessing the cumulative set of access entitlements to which an entity, of an information system, may be implicitly or explicitly authorized, by virtue of the universe of authorization intent specifications that exist across that information system, or a specified subset thereof, that specify access for that entity or for any entity collectives with which that entity may be directly or transitively affiliated. The effective system-level access granted to the user based upon operating system rules or according to access check methodologies is determined and mapped to administrative tasks to arrive at the cumulative set of access entitlements authorized for the user.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional PatentApplication No. 60/816,218, filed Jun. 23, 2006, the entire contents ofwhich are incorporated herein by reference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The invention relates generally to information and computer systems andnetworks security, and more particularly to a method and system forassessing the cumulative access entitlements of an entity, for example auser, or a collective thereof, of an information system.

It may be noted that from hereon, the word entity and user may usuallybe used interchangeably. It may additionally be noted that a user'ssecurity affiliations include the user's identity.

It may further be noted that from hereon, the terms administrativetasks, business tasks, business functions and computing tasks all serveto denote the various abilities to which the entities of an informationsystem may be entitled by virtue of the cumulative access entitlementsthat exist in the information system for these entities. These terms maythus be used interchangeably from hereon in this document.

Information Systems & Information Security

An information system may be viewed as one comprised of (i) a standalonecomputing device or a networked set of computing devices, that usuallyexist to provide some computing service, and that usually run some sortof a control program such as an operating system, and that are usuallyreferred to as IT assets, and the information system may optionally beadditionally comprised of and (ii) the information assets that theseentities may create, consume, store, process, share and manage as a partof their work. In some instances, an information system may also beconsidered to comprise (iii) a set of entities, for example users, thatuse these IT assets (for example computing devices and the services theyoffer)

Information security has become an important aspect of doing businesstoday. Every IT and information asset should be adequately protectedacross all aspects of its lifecycle (i.e. creation, storage,communication and consumption/use) to a degree consistent with the valueof the asset. Thus, most information systems usually provide afundamental set of security services that together deliver numerousprotection capabilities that preferably enable the protection ofinformation assets.

A set of security services usually includes authentication,authorization and, at times, auditing. Authentication usually involveslimiting access to the information system to a known and identifiableset of entities, for example users. Authorization, also referred to asaccess-control, usually involves the specification and enforcement ofauthorization intent dictating the type of access a user of aninformation system has on an information or IT asset, or a set thereof.Auditing, an accountability measure, is usually the means by which arecord of an occurrence of a computing/business task/action by an entityof the system can usually be created, ideally irrefutably, and usuallyarchived.

Authorization

Every IT and information asset usually has an owner who usually hascomplete control over that asset and can thus usually also authorizeother users of the information system to access that asset. Access to anasset is a generic term, and is usually qualified by specifying thenature of access authorized, such as read, modify, create and deleteaccess. In addition, the owner of an asset may also grant (or authorize)another entity such as a user, or a set of entities, such as a group ofusers the ability to control access to the asset itself. Finally, theownership of an object can usually be transferred, and in certain cases,also be seized by another user whose administrative powers exceed orequal that of the current owner of the asset.

The act of specifying who has what access to an asset is usuallyreferred to as specifying authorization intent. An information systempreferably allows entities, such as users, to specify authorizationintent for protecting IT and information assets. In addition, in certaininformation systems, the system itself usually ships with somepre-specified basic level of default authorization intents specified oninformation and IT assets, usually aimed at providing varying levels ofdefault access to different generic sets of users in the system. In mostsystems, the combination of system pre-specified authorization intentsand user-specified authorization intents is usually collectivelyenforced when a user of the information system attempts to access thisinformation/IT asset. Also, in most systems, access is usually enforcedby means of an access check.

Authorization and Entitlements

As it pertains to information security/access control, in most systems,authorization involves the specification and enforcement ofauthorization intent which dictates the access an entity has on anasset. This authorization intent, in effect authorizes the entity toperform a specific system-level operation on the securable resource thatit serves to protect.

In most systems, the specification of authorization intent almost alwaysinvolves an explicit grant or denial of some low-level (system-level)permission that authorizes the ability to perform a correspondingsystem-level operation on some securable resource or on some unit ofdata that may either itself constitute, or be a part of a securableresource, which in turn by itself or as a part of a bigger collective,may represent a unique information or IT asset.

Also, in most systems, by design, a system-level operation that isperformable on a specific type of unit of data in the system maycorrespond to a specific high level administrative task or businessfunction that may be performable in the system. For example, a low-levelcreate operation involving the creation of a data structure representinga user account in the system, corresponds to a high-level administrativetask of creating a user account for an entity in the system.

Consequently, existent authorization intent, in effect also entitles theentity to be able to perform a specific administrative task on the assetthat it serves to protect; the specific administrative task entitledbeing a function of (i) the specific system-level operation authorizedand (ii) a function of the type and nature of this securable resource.

It thus follows that in most systems, the ability of an entity, such asa user to perform a specific high-level administrative task or businessfunction is dependent on the existence of permissions specified inauthorization intent specifications for that entity in the system, thatauthorize the execution of the system-level operation that correspondsto this high-level administrative task.

It thus also follows that in most systems, while each individualauthorization intent specification explicitly governs the ability of anentity, such as a user, to perform a system-level operation on somesecurable resource, more importantly, it implicitly governs the abilityof that entity to perform a high-level administrative task oninformation or IT asset that the securable resource represents.

It finally follows that as it pertains to information security ingeneral and authorization in particular, every existing authorizationintent specification on some securable resource, authorizes the entityspecified in that authorization intent specification to perform aspecific system-level operation on the securable resource that it servesto protect, and in effect also entitles this entity to be able toperform a specific administrative task on the information or asset thatthis securable resource represents.

Authorization, Permissions, Operations and Entitlements

The nature of the permissions specified in an authorization intentspecification in an information system is usually a function of theunderlying implementation of the authorization model and the securityresource managers that provide the means to specify authorizationintent.

In most information systems, permissions specified in an authorizationintent specification that serve to protect a securable resource,typically authorize the subject of the permission to being able toperform some form of system-level operation on the resource. However, inmost information systems, the ability to perform a specific system-leveloperation on a specific type of resource may or may not directlycorrespond to the ability to perform a specific business leveladministrative task or function on the business asset represented bythat securable resource.

In certain implementations, the set of permissions that may be specifiedin authorization intent specifications (or the system-level operationsthat the permissions serve to authorize) directly correspond to a set ofspecific business or administrative functions, in that the intent, theact and the effect of specifying a permission in an authorization intentspecification for an entity, are tantamount to the intent, the act andthe effect of authorizing the entity (specified in that authorizationintent) to engage or enact the specific business or administrative taskor function that maps to this permission. In this case, the presence ofa specific permission directly entitles the entity to perform acorresponding specific administrative/business task/function.

In such implementations, an inspection of the permission in anauthorization intent specification for an entity readily provides anunambiguous indication of the specific business or administrativefunction that this intent specification serves to authorize and entitlefor this entity.

In other implementations, the set of permissions that may be specifiedin authorization intent specifications (or the system-level operationsthat the permissions serve to authorize) do not directly correspond tobut rather indirectly map to a set of specific business oradministrative functions, in that while the act of specifying apermission in an authorization intent specification for an entity may ormay not be intended with the specific purpose of authorizing the entity(specified in that authorization intent) to engage or enact the specificbusiness or administrative function that maps to this permission, theeffect of specifying this permission is tantamount to the effect ofauthorizing the entity (specified in that authorization intent) toengage or enact the specific business or administrative function thatmaps to this permission. In this case, the presence of a specificpermission indirectly entitles the entity to perform a correspondingspecific business or administrative function.

In such implementations, where permissions indirectly entitleadministrative tasks, there exists a mapping between the set ofpermissions that may be specified in authorization intent specificationsand the set of business or administrative tasks or functions that thesepermissions have the effect of authorizing for an entity. This mappingintroduces a gap in a system and the users of a system are required tobe aware of this mapping and manually bridge the gap between thespecific permission specified in the authorization intent specificationand the corresponding business or administrative function that theexistence of this permission ends up authorizing, both during thespecification of and during the assessment of authorization intent.

In such implementations, the act of entitling an entity to a specificbusiness or administrative function and the act of assessing the set ofentitlements conferred upon an entity, both require the inclusion ofthis set of mappings between permissions and administrative tasks. Thisset of mappings is usually delivered in the form of documentationprovided by the vendor of the underlying operating system. In somecases, the vendor of the underlying operating system may implement apartial set of such mappings in the user interface that allows users tospecify permissions on resources.

-   -   NOTE: In most information systems, there is typically a one to        one correspondence between the permission specified in an        authorization intent specification and a specific system-level        operation. Thus there typically also exists a mapping between        the set of resource-type specific system-level operations (that        may be authorized by permissions specified in authorization        intent specifications) and the set of business or administrative        tasks or functions that these permissions have the effect of        authorizing for an entity.        -   Thus, either a set of permission to administrative task            entitlements, or a set of system-level-operation to            administrative task entitlements may be used to assess the            administrative tasks entitled by the presence of specific            permissions in authorization intent specifications            protecting a securable resource.

In such implementations, an inspection of the permission in anauthorization intent specification for an entity, by itself, in nomanner provides any indication whatsoever of the specific business oradministrative function or functions that this intent specificationserves to authorize and entitle for this entity.

It may be noted that while in both implementations, the act ofauthorizing some access to some user, which involves specifying somepermission for the user on an information or IT asset, as manifested inan authorization intent specification, has the effect of entitling theuser to perform some administrative task or business function, the actof inspecting the access specified in an authorization intentspecification may or may not readily provide an indication of thespecific business or administrative function that this intentspecification serves to authorize and entitle for this entity.

Thus, the nature of the permissions specified in an authorization intentspecification in an information system can significantly impact the easewith which an entity's entitlements may be assessed.

The native authorization models of most commercially available operatingsystems such as Microsoft's Windows family of operating systemsprimarily implement an authorization scheme where permissions are usedto specify access on securable objects and for the most part thesepermissions do not directly correspond to but rather indirectly map tospecific business or administrative functions.

Thus, in most information systems, the determination of an entity'saccess entitlements is a highly non-trivial, complex and intensive task.

Cumulative Entitlements

As it pertains to an entity, such as a user of an information system,the entity's cumulative entitlements refer to the resultant set of alladministrative tasks/business functions that the entity is authorized to(i.e. entitled to) perform by virtue of the cumulative access granted tothis entity or any of its security affiliations, across the informationsystem, or a specified subset thereof, as specified in authorizationintent specifications that serve to protect individual or collectiveinformation or IT assets and that cumulatively govern the overall accessgranted or denied to this entity or any of its security affiliations,across the information system, or a specified subset thereof.

For example, consider an information system comprised of a set ofinformation and IT assets and a set of administrators and users. Thesystem administrators may over time grant various permissions to varioususers in effect authorizing them the ability to perform certainadministrative tasks. Note that different administrators may grant thesame user different permissions in different parts of the system, so asto authorize for the user, the ability to perform some business functionor administrative task, as dictated by the business needs. At any givenpoint in time, the user's cumulative access entitlements would thenconsist of the set of all administrative tasks across the entireinformation system, that are authorized by the presence of all existentpermissions that grant this user or a security group that the user is amember of, some form of access on some information or IT asset acrossthe information system, which in effect entitles the user to performsome administrative task of business function related to thatinformation or IT asset.

Cumulative Entitlements and their Assessment

In most information systems today, there usually exist a large set ofauthorization intent specifications across the information system. Eachexpression of authorization intent is usually implicitly or explicitlytied to the asset that it serves to protect and at a minimum specifiesthe entity i.e. subject or principal for whom access is being specifiedand the nature and optionally the level of access that is beingspecified. An information system usually offers the means by which itsentities, such as users, can be represented and uniquely identified andauthenticated. In addition, most information systems usually also offerthe means to collectively specify a set of entities, such as users, forthe purpose of specifying authorization intent. While such means couldtake many forms (e.g. groups, roles etc.) the system ensures that eachsuch collective can also be uniquely identified. Thus, at its simplest,usually, every expression of authorization intent includes a uniqueidentifier for an entity such as a user, or a collective of entities forwhom access is being granted.

As it pertains to scale, the simplest information system is one that iscomprised of a single computing device representing a single IT assetand a set of zero or more information assets that exist on that device,and finally a single entity, such as a user of the information systemcomprised of the above information and IT assets. In this simplest ofcases, there would be an expression of authorization intent governingthis entity's access (use) to the computing device (an IT asset) andfurther one or numerous expressions of authorization intent governingthe entity's access to the various information assets that exist on thatcomputing device.

On the other end of the scale spectrum, a large and complex informationsystem could be comprised of a very large number (to the tune ofhundreds of thousands or even millions) of connected computing devices(representing IT assets) with an equally or exceedingly large number ofinformation assets collectively being stored on the entirety of thesedevices and finally a very large number of entities, such as users, ofthe information system comprised of the above information and IT assets.In this case, there would be a very large collective number ofexpressions of authorization intent governing various aspects includingindividual and collective accesses to computing devices (IT assets) andgoverning the various ways in which the large number of entities, suchas users, of this system may individually and collectively accessany/every one of a large number of information assets that exist on thatentirety of this large number of computing devices.

As it pertains to an individual entity, such as a user, this impliesthat that the cumulative set of authorization intent specifications thatexist for a specific entity across the information system, is comprisedof the collection of a large number of individual authorization intentspecifications, each of which (i) are usually specified as a part of aset of authorization intent specifications on one of a large number ofindividual information or IT assets across the information system, eachof which may be owned or managed by numerous other entities (ii) areusually specified by another entity in the system, who typically own ormanage these assets and (iii) each of which specifies permissions eitherfor this specific entity or for some collective to which this specificentity belongs.

For example, consider an information system, in which there existthousands of individual information and IT assets and hundreds of users.Each information and IT asset usually has an owner who specifiesauthorization intents protecting these assets. These authorizationintent specifications are usually specified in an authorization listprotecting the asset and each individual authorization intentspecification specifies the nature and type of access granted for othersusers and groups in the information system. Thus, for a given user,there may exist thousands of individual authorization intentspecifications each existing in authorization lists on hundreds ofinformation or IT assets, and each specifying some access either forthis user or for a group to which this user may directly or indirectlybelong. Also as illustrated by this example, each of the hundreds orthousands of information or IT assets, whose authorization lists containauthorization intent specifications for this user, are usually owned ormanaged by a large set of different users.

Additionally, as mentioned above, in most information systems, theseauthorization intent specifications explicitly only authorize low-leveloperations on data; thus introducing a gap wherein the correspondinghigh-level administrative tasks or business function that is authorizedneeds to be somehow inferred by the user or an administrator of thesystem.

It may further be noted this large set of authorization intents isneither specified by a sole entity (user) nor is a sole entity (user) inthe know of the entirety of authorization intents that exist across theinformation system. On the contrary, the individual acts involving thesespecifications of authorization intent are usually independent eventsenacted by a large number of unique entities of the system, eachtypically motivated by a desire or a need to protect individualinformation/IT assets. Additionally, unbeknownst to any one singleentity, in their entirety the specified authorization intentscumulatively and implicitly or explicitly result in a large set ofauthorizations for a large set of entities, such as users, across theinformation system. It may also be noted that in most informationsystems today, as such, no single entity (user) is usually in the knowof the entirety of authorization intents to which they themselves oranother entity may be authorized access.

As noted above, the word entity and user may usually be usedinterchangeably.

Also, as noted above, unbeknownst to any one single entity, in theirentirety the specified authorization intents cumulatively and implicitlyor explicitly result in a large set of authorizations for a large set ofusers, across the information system.

As a consequence it follows that every user in an information system isin actuality implicitly or explicitly entitled to a large set ofspecific business or administrative tasks or functions, the collectivescope of which may span large parts of the information system.

It was also noted above that the large set of authorization intents thatexist in an information system are neither specified by a sole entity(user) nor is a sole entity (user) in the know of this entirety.

As a consequence, it follows that, in most information systems today,the cumulative set of a user's entitlements are neither known to theuser him/herself nor known to any other single entity in the informationsystem.

Also as noted above, the users of an information system usually have abusiness need to be able to specify authorization intent in terms ofauthorizing the ability to perform administrative tasks. However, mostimplementations only allow users to specify low-level permissions in anauthorization intent specification. Thus, in most implementations, thereexists a mapping between the set of administrative tasks and thecorresponding set of low-level permissions on specific data types thatare required to authorize these administrative tasks. The users of sucha system are required to be aware of and take into account this mappingboth while specifying authorization intent and while determining the setof entitlements that exist in a system for a user. In suchimplementations, it could very well be the case that a user whilespecifying authorization intent for a specific information/IT asset maynot completely understand or be unaware of the ramifications of grantinga specific type of access on that asset to a specific user or acollective of users.

As a consequence, it follows that there may exist authorization intentsfor a user of a system that end up entitling the user to specificbusiness or administrative functions that in fact were never meant to beauthorized for that user, but that nonetheless are authorized, primarilybecause of human error introduced during the act of authorizing access.

Furthermore, when granting access to a collective of users, the owner orthe manager of an asset, may not realize that anyone who controls orcould obtain the means to control or modify the membership of thatcollective could in effect end up implicitly authorizing access foranother entity to this asset, even though the owner or the manager ofthe asset who used that group to specify access to this asset, may neverhave intended to allow such access to the additional entities that maynow be a part of that modified collective, and thus have access to thatasset by virtue of being a member of a collective to which this owner ormanager ha authorized access.

As a consequence, it follows that there may exist authorization intentsfor a user of a system that end up entitling the user to specificbusiness or administrative functions that in fact they were neversupposed to possess or acquire the ability to engage in.

Thus, it follows that the cumulative entitlements of users in aninformation system may (i) be very large, (ii) span various parts of theinformation system, (iii) in its entirety, neither be known to the userhim/herself nor to any other entity in the information system, includingthe administrators of the information system and the owners of variousinformation assets and finally (iv) entitle the user to excessive accessi.e. the ability to perform specific business or administrativefunctions that in fact they were never supposed to possess or acquirethe ability to engage in, from the perspective of business policy.

Ramifications of Excessive Cumulative Entitlements

The presence of excessive or unauthorized (by policy) entitlements in aninformation system significantly endanger the entirety of anorganization's information and IT assets. Furthermore, their obliviouscontinued presence poses a greater risk because it allows suchvulnerabilities to go unnoticed by administrative or security personneland exist for long periods of time, thereby significantly increasing thelikelihood of the discovery and subsequent misuse of thesevulnerabilities by malicious individuals.

To be more specific, the presence of a user's excessive entitlements canbe grossly misused either by the user or by any malicious party that maycome to learn of their existence either accidentally or intentionally. Amalicious user could misuse the presence of excessive entitlements andthe knowledge thereof to escalate his/her privilege and potentiallycompromise one or more information or IT assets to which he/shehim/herself may not be authorized access. A shrewd malicious user couldnot only compromise another asset but also implicate the user whoseentitlements were used to compromise the asset thereby causing harmingto the user whose entitlements were misused and leaving the victim userwith no way of claiming or providing proof of his/her innocence.

A Real World Illustration

This problem is best illustrated by a real example of its manifestationin over 80% of IT information systems across the world, each of whichrun on Microsoft Corporation's Windows server and client family ofoperating systems.

It is a well established fact that information security is fundamentallyabout access management. Access management involves the authenticationof users, the authorization of access to resources and the auditing ofthe execution of some user-specifiable administrative/computingtasks/functions. These facilities in turn require the presence of useraccounts for user identification and authentication, and it alsorequires the specification of authorization intent on resources, so asto be able to specify who has what access on a given resource.

In information systems running on Microsoft's Windows server and clientfamily operating systems, at the heart of access management is theActive Directory, an enterprise directory service that plays a centralrole in user authentication, resource authorization and access auditing,in addition to playing the role of an enterprise directory that is usedfor resource location.

From a technical perspective, the Active Directory is a hierarchical,object-oriented information store. It ships with a schema that containspre-defined definitions of numerous object classes, each comprised of afinite set of attributes. The purpose of each object class and attributein the schema is defined by the designers of the Windows operatingsystem. These schema definitions define objects that represent users,security groups, computers, printers and other resources.

In a Windows Server based information system, user accounts arerepresented by instantiations of objects of class user in the ActiveDirectory; similarly security groups and computers are represented byinstantiations of objects of class group and computer respectively. Thesame is true for various other categories of resources includingprinters and service connection points.

One consequence of the above aspect is that in a Windows Server based ITinfrastructure, administrative tasks associated with the management ofresources involve the creation of specific object types in the ActiveDirectory and the initial setting and subsequent modification of thevalues of the attributes that these objects are compromised of.

For example, the administrative task of creating user accounts amountsto the creation of an object of class user in the Active Directory.Similarly the administrative task of creating security groups amounts tothe creation of an object of class group in the Active Directory. On thesame note, the administrative task of disabling a user account involvesthe modification of the user-account-control attribute on the specificuser account object, and the administrative task involving themodification of a security group membership involves the modification ofthe member attribute on the group object representing that group.

In this manner, almost every administrative task in almost everyadministrative category such as account, group, computer and printermanagement, involves the creation, modification or deletion of objectclasses and attributes in the Active Directory.

Microsoft Windows based information systems are usually large andcomprise of thousands of user accounts, computers, security groups andresources, each of which needs to be managed. Because it is infeasiblefor a small set of administrators to manage such a large set ofresources, Active Directory offers a powerful capability that allowsadministrators to distribute and delegate the various aspects ofmanagement of these resources between a large number of relatively lesspowerful administrators and between the users of the system themselves.

This powerful capability is enabled by Active Directory's authorizationmodel, which provides administrators the ability to grant a user or asecurity group a set of specific permissions on objects in the ActiveDirectory. Each object is protected by an access control list (ACL),which contains a set of zero or more access control entries (ACEs), eachof which specifies a set of one or more permissions for a user or asecurity group on that object.

In Active Directory, there exist a basic set of permissionscorresponding to the basic low-level operations that can be performed onobjects and attributes. These basic low-level operations include list(a) child (object), create (new instance of) object, delete (an existinginstance of) object, read-property (i.e. attribute), and write-property.The basic set of corresponding permissions in Active Directory includelist child, create object, delete object, read-property andwrite-property. In addition, there also exist certain advancedpermissions such as modify owner and modify permissions, and there exista small number of specific special permissions. Together, these set ofpermissions in Active Directory control the ability of a user to performa low-level operation on an object

Each basic low-level data operation on a specific class of object or oneof its attributes maps to a specific administrative task and thusentitles a user to perform some administrative task. Most administrativeoperations involve the creation or deletion of objects and/or thereading or modification of attributes on objects. Because ActiveDirectory provides the means by which each of these low-level operationscan be authorized to a user, in effect Active Directory allowsadministrators the ability to grant lesser privileged administrators anduser themselves the precise set of permissions (on specific objects)that are required to perform one or more administrative tasks. In thismanner, administrative entitlements are conferred upon lesser privilegedadministrators and users themselves.

It is not uncommon for a lesser-privileged administrator to be grantedpermissions on thousands of objects over the lifetime of theiremployment in that capacity. Also, in many cases delegatedadministrators may themselves be allowed to further sub-delegateadministrative authority to other delegated administrators and users.

Over a long period of time, hundreds of administrative personnel andusers may end up having permissions granted to them on thousands ofdifferent objects in the Active Directory. Over time, it may also verywell be that while the administrative responsibilities assigned to adelegated administrator may change, the set of permissions assigned tohim/her or to a group to which he/she might belong may not be removed,either due to administrative oversight or for a variety of otherreasons, and thus may continue to exist thereby continuing to allowhim/her the ability to perform an administrative task to which he/sheshould ideally no longer be entitled to perform.

It may be noted that a simple evaluation of these permissions will in nomanner allow a user to infer the set of administrative tasks that thesepermissions grant to a user or to a group. This is because while ActiveDirectory allows for permissions to be specified, it provides nofacility for an administrator that is specifying a permission todescribe or annotate it with the reason or intent governing thespecification of this permission. Thus, while the ACEs in the ACLS oneach one of thousands of objects in the Active Directory specify whatpermissions a specific user or group has, they do contain no informationthat might provide any indication as to why that permission exists inthat ACE. As a consequence, when an administrator views an ACL on anyone of thousands of objects in the directory, all he or she sees is alist of low-level permissions granted to a set of users or groups.

A related issue is that of attempting to determine the list of all usersto whom a specific administrative task may be authorized by virtue of anACE that exists on an object that grants some permission to a securitygroup. The mere evaluation of this ACE will neither reveal whatadministrative task it entitles the members of this group to, nor willit reveal the members of this group. Furthermore, it is not sufficientto simply read the member attribute of the corresponding group object inActive Directory, as group memberships can be transitive in nature, andthis transitive in nature is not reflected in the member attribute ofthe group object—it must be evaluated. For example, a group could be amember of another group which in turn could be a member of anothergroup. A simple inspection of the member attribute of this third groupwill only reveal that the second group is a direct member of it; it willnot reveal that the first group in turn is a member of this second groupand thus in fact is also a member of the third group. Thus, a simpleevaluation of these permissions will in no manner provide any indicationas to the entire set of users that may be entitled to performing eitherthe low-level operation or the corresponding administrative task thatcorresponds to the presence of those permissions on that object.

It may also be noted that for any given user, the set of permissionsthat cumulatively allow him or her (either directly or transitively) theability to perform a set of low-level operations on a set of objects (,and thus perform all corresponding high-level administrative tasks,) mayexist in thousands of ACEs, each one belong to the ACL of one ofthousands of objects. It may further be noted that these permissionswould typically not have been provisioned by a single administrator, butrather provisioned by numerous administrators, each of whom may belongto different groups, and may only be responsible for managing isolatedsubsets of resources. Thus, in all likelihood, no single administratorin the system would know about the entire set of permissions that existfor any one of thousands of users or security groups.

As a consequence, it may very well be that a user or a delegatedadministrator may be entitled to performing a large set ofadministrative tasks in the system. Also, neither the user him orherself nor any administrator in the system would have knowledge of theentirety of administrative tasks that the user is actually authorized toperform across the information system. Additionally, there may existexcessive entitlements in the system, and these may end up grantingentitlements that may be in violation of security policy. Finally, asimple evaluation of ACLs on objects will neither reveal the cumulativeset of operations that are authorized by the presence of the ACEs inthat ACL, nor will they reveal information about the cumulative set ofusers who may entitled to performing the various administrative tasksthat corresponds to the presence of the permissions specified in theseACEs.

Thus at any given point in time, an ordinary user or a delegatedadministrator of the system may very well be entitled to creating newuser accounts or groups, resetting the passwords of or disabling a largenumber of user accounts, modifying potentially sensitive andconfidential information on user accounts, modifying the groupmembership of a large number of security groups each of which in turnmay have been used at thousands of places in the system to specifyaccess on thousands of resources, etc.

This problem is not limited to the existence of large numbers of userentitlements, each of which may span various administrative categoriesand in a direct or indirect manner be related to some permission grantedon one of thousands of objects that exist in the Active Directory. It infact extends to include access that may be provisioned for thousands ofusers to access thousands of hosts that are a part of the ITinfrastructure and to further include access that may be provisioned tothousands of information assets that reside on these hosts—examples ofsuch information assets include trade secrets, product blue-prints,business plans, competitive strategies, business intelligence, strategicand tactical plans, financials, customers records, employee records,operational and security blue-prints, information exchange betweenemployees, customers, executives & other stakeholders etc., all of whichmay exist as individual documents or as contents of databases, access toeach of which could be obtained directly or via a service.

In its entirety, this is a real problem and one that poses a majorchallenge in the ability of organizations around the world to secureaccess to their information and IT assets.

In any moderate to large information system, there exist hundreds ofthousands individual authorization intent specifications each of whichis attached to one of hundreds of thousands of information assets,multiple copies of each of which may reside on thousands of computingdevices (IT assets), each gated by one of many different kinds ofresource managers that exist across the information system and each oneauthorizing an operation or a task, the inference of which requirescontextual knowledge which is usually an inferred function of the typeof asset being protected and the specific nature of access specified inthe authorization entitlement.

Even at best, any such measures would fall far short in their attemptsto arrive at a meaningful (complete and accurate) list of a user'scumulative entitlements across the information system, primarily becausethe vast amounts of information that would have to be assessed, siftedand subsequently processed (to account for context), to arrive at ameaningful list, and the extraordinarily inordinate amount of time thata manual assessment of the same would require, would in itself make anymanual attempts virtually useless, especially considering that it inorder for such information to be at all useful, it would have to be ofarrived at very quickly, given its time sensitive nature.

Benefits of Cumulative Assess Entitlements

There are numerous benefits in being successfully able to assess thecumulative assessments of an entity in an information system. Such anassessment could be used to determine the set of all administrativetasks or business functions that a user is entitled to performing acrossthe information system. It could also be used to discover the presenceof insecure or weak or unauthorized permissions that allow a user toperform some task that he or she should not be allowed to perform. Itmay further be used to determine the set of all users who may be able toperform a given task in an information system. It may also be used toidentify the presence of privilege escalation paths in the system.Additional benefits of this ability will be apparent to those ofordinary skill in the art.

One's ability to successfully and accurately assess the entitlements ofan entity in a system is dependent on numerous factors including thenature of authorization intent specifications that exist in the system,the use of security affiliations, the presence of different types ofresource managers that collectively gate access to the variousinformation and IT assets across an information system, the vast expanseof the information system and the inclusion of numerous other dynamicsthat may be specific to the implementation of the authorization modelunderlying the various parts of an information system.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

This invention provides a method and system for assessing the cumulativeset of entitlements to which an entity, such as a user, or a collectivethereof, of an information system may be implicitly or explicitlyauthorized, by virtue of the universe of all authorization intentspecifications that exist across that information system, or a specifiedsubset thereof, for that entity and/or for any collective affiliationswith which that entity may be directly or transitively affiliated.

In one aspect, the method and system for arriving at an entity'scumulative entitlements across the information system involves:

-   -   1. A determination of a set security affiliations of the entity        across the information system, or a specified subset thereof,        followed by    -   2. A determination of a set of authorization intent        specifications that pertain to this set of security        affiliations, followed by    -   3. A determination of the system-level access granted to the        entity in view of this set of authorization intent        specifications, and at least some access check methodologies        implemented in the computer system, followed by    -   4. A determination of the entity's cumulative access entitlement        set by application of system-level access to administrative task        mappings, optionally followed by,

Furthermore, in other aspects, the method and system for arriving at anentity's cumulative entitlements across the information system mayfurthermore be utilized to perform additional cumulative access relatedsecurity assessments, such as but not limited to determining thecumulative access granted to all entities in a system, determining theidentity of all entities that may be entitled to performing a specifictask, uncovering existing security access entitlements that allowprivilege escalation etc.

Determining the Entity's Cumulative Security Affiliations

In some embodiments the invention determines the cumulative set of allsecurity affiliations of the user whose entitlements the method andsystem is tasked with the determination of. Such a determination isusually an integral part of this determination because the cumulativeentitlements of a user are usually not solely the function of what theuser him/herself is authorized access to but rather and usually afunction of the authorizations granted to the user him/herself andadditionally the set of all authorizations granted to any collective(e.g. security groups) that the user may be affiliated with (or a partof) directly or transitively.

It is common and in actuality usually a norm for the owners andprotectors of an information or IT asset to grant access to collectivesrather than individual users. The specific types and kinds ofcollectives used in an information system are usually a function of thesecurity model implemented by the underlying operating system. Two ofthe most common collectives include security group memberships andadministrative or business function role definitions. Most commercialoperating systems offer the use of either or both collectives and withineach collective there usually exist various sub-types, and thesesub-types usually vary in the scope in which they are applicable and inthe specific computing environment in which they may be effective. Auser could be a member of a large number of collectives, each of whichmay be of varying sub-types, and each of which in turn could be membersof other collectives.

In order to evaluate the complete set of a user's cumulativeentitlements, it is imperative to first evaluate the complete set ofcollectives that will come into play when the user is engaged in acomputing session during which he/she might attempt to access theresources of the information system. The set of a user's collectivesthat come into play when the user is engaged in a computing session isimplementation specific and usually differs from system to system. Theevaluation of a user's complete set of collectives is thus a highlycomplex evaluation. One of the salient aspects of this invention is theadroit skill with which the method accurately arrives at a user'scomplete set of collectives that will come into play when the user isengaged in a computing session.

Determining the Entity's Authorization Intent Specifications

In some embodiments this invention determines or discovers allindividual authorization intent specifications that exist across theuniverse of information and IT assets in the information system and thenqueues this set of individual authorization intent specifications. Itmay be noted that usually each of these individual authorization intentspecifications exist as a part of a larger unit of authorization intentspecifications, (which for the purposes of discussion shall from hereonbe referred to as an authorization lists). A single authorization listprotects a single specific information or IT asset.

Thus, in effect, in some embodiments this invention involves parsing avery large number of authorization lists, extracting and evaluating theindividual authorization intent specifications from within these lists,and making a determination as to whether or not each of these individualauthorization intent specifications grant access to the user or to anycollective of which the user may be a part, or to which the user may beaffiliated, either directly or transitively, and if so, queuing eachsuch individual authorization intent specification for subsequentprocessing.

Note that in some embodiments this invention may also involve takinginto account various aspects that may be specific to the implementationof the authorization model underlying the various parts of aninformation system. For example, in this determination, the method andsystem of this invention may additionally evaluate whether or not anindividual authorization intent specification is considered effectivefor the purposes of an access check and accordingly only take intoaccount all effective individual authorization intent specification.

Determining the Entity's Cumulative System Level Access

In some embodiments this invention determines the effective cumulativesystem access i.e. the cumulative set of all system level operationsthat this user is authorized to perform (and the target resources orinformation/IT assets on which the user can perform these system levelaccess operations) by virtue of the universe of authorization intentspecifications that specify some access for this user and for any of hissecurity affiliations across the information system, or a clientspecified subset thereof.

In some embodiments the aforementioned determination of the cumulativeset of authorized system level operations is a complex and computationintensive process because it involves taking into account the entity'scumulative authorization intent specifications, and all pertinentaspects of the access check algorithms implemented in the underlyinginformation or operating systems, such as, but not limited to, securitytoken generation, access control entry precedence orders etc.

It may be noted that the inclusion of all pertinent aspects of theaccess check algorithms implemented in the underlying information oroperating systems is a vital aspect of the cumulative access assessmentprocess and could be considered essential for arriving at an accurateaccess assessment.

Determining the User's Cumulative Entitlements

In some embodiments this invention determines the set of all specificadministrative tasks and/or business functions that this user isentitled to, which involves the application of a pre-determined or adynamically generated set of system level access to administrative taskmappings.

Every information or IT asset is represented in the system by aninstance of some well-defined data structure. In most operating systems,the access specified governs the system-level operations that can beperformed on these well-defined data structures. The ability to performsome specific system-level operation on a well-defined data structuretypically maps to the ability to perform some administrative task on alogical business asset. For example, the ability of an administrator toinstantiate an object of a well-defined class called User corresponds tothe business-level administrative task of creating a new user accountfor a new user in the system. Thus, a determination of the set of alladministrative tasks that a user may be entitled to requires a set ofsystem-level operation to administrative task mappings.

The determination of the mappings between some specified system levelaccess on this information asset and the administrative task that thisauthorized system-level access effectively entitles, involves anassessment of the context and nature of the data structure that is usedto represent this information asset.

The system level access to administrative task mappings are usually notreadily available or furnished in an information system but rather mustbe correlated and put together from a number of different sources ofsuch information, including but not limited to user documentation,experimental deductions, etc. Thus, the method of arriving at such a setof mappings involves data gathering, correlation and analysis, whichusually involves manual human effort to put together. Once put togetherand made available to an access assessment method or system, this listof mappings can then be used to assess an entity's cumulative accessacross the information system, or a specified subset thereof.

An Illustration

As illustrated by an example, let us assume that there exists an objectof class user in an enterprise directory service in an informationsystem. Let us also assume that the object definition is comprised of acollection of a finite set of attributes, each of which exists torepresent something specific about that user. Finally let us assume thata specific instance of this object represents a specific user's accountin the system. Let us also assume that this specific instance of theobject is protected by an authorization list which is comprised of oneor more individual authorization intent specifications, which are herebyreferred to as access control entries.

Let us also assume that first access control entry in that list allowssome user to modify the user-account-control attribute on that userobject. Notice that the authorization intent specification merelyauthorizes a low-level (system level) operation on an object, which isessentially a data-structure in the underlying operating system. So, ineffect the permission specified in this access control entry permits theuser to modify this attribute. The knowledge of the existence of thisaccess control entry in itself is meaningless without context i.e.without also knowing what business function or administrative task themodification of that attribute corresponds to. In this example, let usassume that the designers of the underlying system so designed it suchthat the information contained in the user-account-control attributegoverns whether or not this user account is in a disabled state i.e.temporarily out of commission.

Thus, it can be concluded that any user who is authorized modify accessto that attribute on that user account object can now in effect disablethe user account that this object instance represents. In addition wecan also conclude that the first access control entry in theauthorization list entitles its subject to disable that specificaccount.

Note that the partial knowledge regarding the authorization of aspecific system level operation (i.e. modify in this case) on a specificsecurable resource, in itself, was hardly meaningful in terms ofassessing access entitlements, but that the inclusion of its context inthis evaluation immediately reveals the administrative task thatcorresponds to the system-level operation authorized by the permissionspecified in the authorization intent specification for that user.Without the knowledge of the associated context and the inclusionthereof in this evaluation, it most likely would not have been possibleto arrive at the desired conclusion.

Continuing the discussion, in light of the above example, usually eachinformation/IT asset is typically an instance of one of a finite numberof information classes or types, as conceived by the designers of theoperating system underlying the information system, and as suchrepresents a specific type of resource. As the example illustrates, thedetermination of the specific administrative task or business functionauthorized by the presence of a specific authorization intent on anasset, involves taking into account (i) the nature of access authorizedby the permission specified in the authorization intent specification,(ii) the target-specific system-level operation that corresponds to theaccess authorized by this permission on this specific type of theinformation asset, (iii) and the mapping between the target specificauthorized system level operation and the administrative task thecorresponds to it.

Thus, the identity of an entity can be used to determine the user'scumulative security affiliations, which in turn can then be used todetermine the user's cumulative authorization intent specifications,which in turn, along with the inclusion of all pertinent aspects of theaccess check algorithms implemented in the underlyinginformation/operating systems can be used to determine the user'scumulative set of authorized system-level operations, which, finally, inturn, along with along with the inclusion of the set of mappings fromtarget-specific authorized system-level operations to correspondingentitled administrative tasks/business functions, can ultimately be usedto arrive at the cumulative set of a user's cumulative entitlementsacross an information system, or a specified subset thereof.

In Summary

To summarize, the embodiments of this method and system involve thedetermination of the set of all administrative tasks that a user of asystem may be entitled to, by virtue of the collective effectivesystem-level access granted either to the user or to any securitycollective, such as a security group, to which the user belongs, asspecified across the set of authorization intent specifications thatexist in the system.

In order to determine the set of all administrative tasks that a user ofa system may be entitled, the method and system first determine theuser's cumulative security affiliations.

With the knowledge of the user's cumulative security affiliations, themethod and system proceed to assess the universe of authorization intentspecifications that exist across the information system and determinethe set of those existing authorization intent specifications thatspecify some access for either the user or one of the user's securityaffiliations.

With this determined set of authorization intent specifications thatspecify some access for either the user or one of the user's securityaffiliations, the method and system take into account all pertinentaspects of the access check algorithms implemented in the underlyinginformation or operating systems and assess the user's cumulativeeffective system-level access specified by this set of all authorizationintent specifications.

With this determined set of the user's cumulative effective system-levelaccess, the method and system proceed to use a pre-determined ordynamically generated set of system-level access to administrative tasksmappings to finally arrive at the cumulative set of a user's cumulativeentitlements across an information system.

In this manner, the method and system determine a user's cumulativeaccess entitlements across an information system

Embodiments

In one embodiment, the invention provides a computerized method andsystem for determining and optionally reporting the cumulative set ofall tasks that an entity, such as a user, of an information system isauthorized to perform, across the information system, or a clientspecified subset thereof.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a computerized method andsystem for determining and optionally reporting the cumulative set ofall tasks that all entities, such as users, in an information system areauthorized to perform, across the information system, or a clientspecified subset thereof.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a computerized method andsystem for determining and optionally reporting the cumulative set ofall entities, such as users, in a system that may be entitled toperforming a specific administrative task in an information system, or aclient specified subset thereof.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a computerized method andsystem for determining and optionally reporting the precise set ofauthorization intent specifications that exist in an information system,or a client specified subset thereof, on an information or IT asset,that in effect authorize a given entity, such as a user, or a set ofentities, such as a security group, to perform a specific administrativetask, or a set thereof.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a computerized method andsystem for determining and optionally reporting the set of all resourcesthat an entity, such as a user, or a collective set thereof, isauthorized access to across the information system, or a clientspecified subset thereof.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a computerized method andsystem for determining and optionally reporting the precise set ofauthorization intent specifications that exist in an information system,or a client specified subset thereof, on an information or IT asset,that in effect authorize a given entity, such as a user, or a set ofentities, to perform a specific administrative task, or a set thereof,and additionally determining whether such authorization intent was infact a part of the default (system vendor specified) entitlementsconferred upon the entities, such as users, of the information system.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a computerized and systemmethod for determining and optionally reporting the presence ofexcessive or insecure permissions granted to entities, such as users, onone or more specific information or IT asset across the informationsystem, or a client specified subset thereof.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a computerized method andsystem for determining and optionally reporting the presence of singleor multi step security privilege escalation paths that may exist acrossthe information system, or a client specified subset thereof.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a computerized method andsystem for determining and optionally reporting whether or notauthorization intent specifications that exist on specific informationor IT asset, or a set thereof, are in compliance with the businesssecurity policy governing the protection of that specific information orIT asset or the set thereof.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a computerized method andsystem for determining and optionally reporting the presence of allsecurity vulnerabilities or weaknesses that may exist as a result of thepresence of what may be deemed weak or insecure authorization intentspecifications on an information or IT asset in at least a portion ofthe information system, wherein the presence of such permissionsendangers the protection of the confidentiality, integrity oravailability of the asset.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a computerized method andsystem for providing the ability to modify the state of any assessedentitlement that the user may be entitled to across at least a portionof the information system.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a computerized method andsystem for assessing and optionally providing access entitlement relatedsecurity risk indicators, across at least a portion of the informationsystem.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a computerized method andsystem for assessing and optionally reporting time-period baseddifferences in an entity's cumulative entitlements.

In some embodiments the invention provides the results of thedeterminations to the client of the system in various ways, includingbut not limited to, the presentation of the results in an interactivecomputing session, the printing of the results on any printable media,the communication of the results across a computer network to theanother computing device or a client thereof etc.

In some embodiments the invention renders the information determined, tothe client of the system in various ways including but not limited tosummaries, time-period based reports and spotlights related to the stateof access in an information system.

In some embodiments the invention presents provides time-period based(daily, weekly, etc.) reporting capabilities related to the state ofaccess in an information system.

In some embodiments the invention presents provides cumulative accessentitlement related heuristic based security indicators in aninformation system.

In some embodiments the invention obtains either a part of or all of theinformation that may be essential to making the required determinationon a secure channel such that the information being obtained from avariety of sources may not be accessible by any another entity on thenetwork

In some embodiments the invention obtains either a part of or all of theinformation that may be essential to making the required determinationwith or without the employ or presence of user agents of any computingdevices or hosts in the information system (i.e. agent-less discovery)

In some embodiments the invention prompts the client of the system for aset of credentials that may be required for obtaining authorized accessto authorization intent specifications that exist across the informationsystem, or a client specified sub-set thereof.

Additional aspects of the present invention will be apparent to thoseskilled in the art upon further consideration of this document,including the figures.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 depicts a pictorial representation of a computing device, a largenumber of which may collectively be used to develop an informationsystem.

FIG. 2 depicts a pictorial representation of an information system inwhich the present invention may be implemented.

FIG. 3 depicts a diagram illustrating the authentication andauthorization components of the underlying security subsystem thattogether provides the means to secure information and IT assets in aninformation system.

FIG. 4 depicts a diagram illustrating the components of an access check.

FIG. 5 depicts a user and his cumulative security affiliations.

FIG. 6 depicts information/IT asset and the authorization list thatprotects the asset.

FIG. 7 depicts a diagram illustrating the relationship between anadministrative task/business function and the corresponding system-levelpermission that authorizes the administrative task/business function.

FIG. 8 depicts a diagram illustrating the different kinds ofauthorization intent specifications that may exist on a host in aninformation system.

FIG. 9 depicts a diagram illustrating the presence of a large number ofauthorization intent specifications in a subset of an informationsystem.

FIG. 10 depicts a diagram illustrating the presence of a large number ofauthorization intent specifications across an entire information system.

FIG. 11 depicts a diagram of the summary of the cumulative entitlementsassessment method which is a salient part of this invention.

FIG. 12 depicts a diagram of an overview of the cumulative entitlementsassessment method which is a salient part of this invention.

FIG. 13 depicts a diagram of an overview of the cumulative entitlementsassessment system which is a salient part of this invention.

FIG. 14 discloses a flow chart which describes the operation of theClient Preference (Input) Specification module.

FIG. 15 discloses a flow chart which describes the operation of theCumulative Security Affiliation Determination Module.

FIG. 16 discloses a flow chart which describes the operation of theCumulative Authorization Intent Discovery module.

FIG. 17 discloses a flow chart which describes the operation of theCumulative System-Level Access Determination module.

FIG. 18 discloses a flow chart which describes the operation of theCumulative Entitlement Inference & Assimilation module.

FIG. 19 discloses a flow chart which describes the operation of theCumulative Entitlement Reporting (Output) module.

FIG. 20 depicts a sample of the cumulative assessment report that thissystem might furnish to the client of this system.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

With reference now to the figures, FIG. 1 depicts a pictorialrepresentation of a computing device, a large number of which maycollectively be used to develop an information system.

As is illustrated in the figure, every computing device may beconsidered to be comprised of at least five main (and possibly more)technical components including a single or multiple processor 1,volatile system memory 2, involatile storage memory 3 and a host ofinput/output interfaces and/or controllers 4, all connected together bya system bus 5, which may further be connected to various input andoutput devices, the most common ones being keyboards, mice and monitors.

The description of a computing device as presented herein is primarilyintended to communicate a nature of a computing device.

In additional reference to computing devices, most of these computingdevices will usually be controlled by some sort of a control programsuch as an operating system. The operating system runs on the processorand utilizes and manages other hardware components of the host. Theoperating system provide multiple layers of abstraction between thehardware and the users of a system and as such provides numerouscapabilities and facilities to coordinate, control and manage thevarious components and activities on the host. The operating system maybe one developed and offered by a commercial vendor, such as the Windowsfamily of operating systems offered by Microsoft Corporation, or the MacOS offered by Apple Corporation, and/or it may be one that developed andoffered by a joint public effort, such as the various flavors of theLinux operating system. The list of operating systems mentioned aboveare merely intended as examples and are not an architectural limitationfor the present invention.

At least one of the capabilities usually made available by the operatingsystem on the computing device would allow for the ability to protectthe computing device itself and further usually allow for the ability toprotect any information assets created, consumed, stored or communicatedfrom the computing device. These set of security capabilities availableon this computing devices may usually further be augmented by one ormore security services offered on other computing devices and madeavailable for use on this computing device.

FIG. 2 depicts a pictorial representation of an information system inwhich the present invention may be implemented.

Information System

As is illustrated in the figure, an information system consists of oneor more computing devices 8, each one usually running an operatingsystem, and thus commonly referred to as hosts 13, each of which mayplay one or more roles including that of a client or a server. Servers 7may host a variety of services 6 including but not limited to resourcelocation services, name translation services, data storage and retrievalservices, directory services and a set of security services.

These computing devices may or may not be connected via a communicationsnetwork 9.

In reference to the communications network that may connect thesecomputing devices, the communications network may be a Local AreaNetwork (LAN), or a Wide Area Network (WAN) or a combination thereof,and the underlying set of communications protocols may belong to theuniversally known TCP/IP set of protocols or another set ofcommunications protocols that in effect facilitate the communication ofdata across a network. Such a communications network may in fact alsoprovide connectivity to the Internet 12, and additionally securely usethe Internet to extend the information system across variousgeographically disconnected parts of the world. The computer networkdisplayed in this picture is primarily intended as an example.

In reference to IT assets, an IT asset may be any asset that enables orfacilitates the use of computing towards providing a useful function tothe needs of an individual or an organization. In line with thisdescription, computing devices including portable and non-portablepersonal computers 13, servers 7, personal digital assistants, portableand non-portable media devices, communications networks 9, operatingsystems, information security systems and their components includinguser accounts, group memberships etc., and a host of other componentssuch as printers 11, scanners, various kinds of networking equipmentsuch as routers 10 and other similar assets together represent the setof IT assets of an organization.

In reference to information assets, information in any form that is ofsome value to an organization or an individual constitutes aninformation asset. As an example, an information asset may be anythingthat (i) is of some value to an entity, such as a user, or a setthereof, and (ii) exists in a form may be created by and/or consumed byan entity such as a user, using a computing device (with or without anoperating system) and optionally further communicated between twocomputing devices and/or be stored and/or be storable on a computingdevice, and (iii) exists as a collection of data units that a computingdevice can understand and process such that (iv) the application ofcomputing processing applied to this collection of data units on acomputing device, reveals the information that is embodied in thecollection of data units.

Thus, any information stored in data units such as data files of varioustypes, or in databases, or in any other commonly used units of data, andoptionally any information communicated between two parties via the useof one or more computing devices would constitute an information asset.Examples of such information assets include, but are not limited tointellectual property, trade secrets, product blue-prints, businessplans, competitive strategies, business intelligence, strategic andtactical plans, financials, customers records, employee records,operational and security blue-prints, information exchange betweenemployees, customers, executives & other stakeholders etc. In mostinformation systems, information assets are stored as files or databaseson the numerous hosts 13 that comprise the information system.

In reference to the users of an information system, every informationsystem has a set of users that use IT assets that the information systemis comprised of, towards the fulfillment of some purpose, and in thecourse of doing so, create, consume, communicate and store informationassets. An information system could have a single user or a number ofusers, and this number could be small, medium or large.

FIG. 3 depicts a diagram illustrating the authentication andauthorization components of an underlying security subsystem thatprovides the means to secure information and IT assets in an informationsystem.

Information Security

In reference to the need for information security in an informationsystem, by its very nature, the term asset refers to something that isof value to someone, and thus, implicit with its nature and a functionof its value to its owner or owners, is a need to protect either one ofor a combination thereof of the confidentiality, integrity oravailability of the asset.

The protection of an information asset or an IT asset generally involvesthe ability of the owner or owners of the information asset to specifythe type of access that another entity may have on that asset, and thisusually corresponds to specifying the set of actions that anotherentity, such as a user, could perform on an information asset. Thisaspect of information security is commonly referred to as authorization.Therefore it is usually preferable to unambiguously differentiatebetween two or more different entities and uniquely identify each one ofthem. This aspect of information security is commonly referred to asidentification.

The mere ability to uniquely identify an entity is insufficient withoutthe means to irrefutably confirm that an entity is indeed who he or sheclaims to be. Thus in addition to being able to uniquely identify anentity, the means by which a claim to an identity may be corroboratedare required. The aspect of information security that enables thismeans, is commonly referred to as authentication and it involvesproviding the means for and subsequently verifying without a doubt thevalidity of an entity's claim to an identity.

Finally, there exists one other aspect of information security, whichwhile isn't technically fundamental, is treated as such, and is commonlyreferred to as auditing; it provides the means to create and obtain arecord of the actions taken by an entity.

Thus, in order to adequately protect information or IT assets, the twomain fundamental abilities, that of authentication and authorization,and optionally the third, that of auditing preferably are available inan information system. In most information systems, these abilities aredelivered by the underlying distributed operating system, which isusually comprised of a set of individual operating systems running onthe numerous computing devices in the information system, all working intandem to deliver a set of distributed services that allow for theadequate protection of all information and IT assets across theinformation system.

A computing device running an operating system is from hereon referredto as a host, as is illustrated by 17 in this figure.

Security Domains 14

Almost all information security systems today have the notion of asecurity domain 14 and associated with each security domain is asecurity authority 15 that is responsible for providing the means toprotect all information and IT assets that are a part of that securitydomain. As mentioned earlier, the means to protect assets involve twomain fundamental abilities, that of authentication and authorization.Authentication requires the use of user accounts and authorizationrequires the use of some means by which authorization intent can bespecified towards the protection of information and IT assets, alsocommonly referred to as securable resources. Authorization intent isalmost always specified in terms of the type of access granted to a useror a set thereof on a specific securable resource or a set thereof.

The domain security authority is thus responsible for issuing useraccounts to the users of the system (domain) for the purpose ofauthentication. Domains require an account store to store domain useraccounts and their credentials. Most commercially available operatingsystems use an enterprise directory 151 as their account store. Allusers of a domain thus have a user account issued by the domain'ssecurity authority that represents them uniquely and that they use toauthenticate to the system. User accounts are typically stored in anaccount database such as an enterprise directory service 151 as a useraccount 21.

Domain Joined Hosts 17

As mentioned above, a domain security authority is responsible forproviding the means to protect all information and IT assets that are apart of that security domain. An IT or information asset can be a partof a security domain either by virtue of being created, consumed,communicated or stored on or via a host 17 that is a part of thatsecurity domain and/or by being under the direct or indirect control ofa user that belongs to that security domain.

The notion of a host 17 being a part of a domain 14 needs someelucidation. By itself, a domain is merely a concept and strictlyspeaking, by itself only includes the trusted authority 15 for thatdomain. In addition to the presence of a central trusted authority, eachstand-alone host such as 17 has a local trusted authority 171, alsoreferred to as a local security authority, which is responsible forprotecting all securable information assets on that host and furtheroptionally responsible for protecting (to the extent that it can) thehost itself.

This local security authority 171 on the host can also issue localaccounts for use on the host itself and as such is authoritative for alllocal accounts on that host, and the boundary of the local security andits local accounts is the host and only that host, and thus includesevery securable resource on that host, each of which may exist invarious forms, such as, but not limited to, information contained in avariety of files and databases etc.

Every such host that has a local security authority can join the domain.The purpose of joining the domain is primarily to allow domain accountsaccess to any local securable resources on this host. The act of joiningthe domain involves the establishment of a computer account in thedomain trusted authority's account store for that host (which is similarto a user account) and the establishment of a shared set of secrets(similar to a password) between the local security authority and thedomain security authority. This set of secrets is then used to establisha secure channel 18 and communicate securely.

The act of joining the domain results in the extension of the domain inthat it now enables entities with domain user accounts to accessresource stored on the domain joined host. Under the hood, an implicittrust relationship is established between the domain security authorityand the hosts' local security authority and as a result, the localsecurity authority agrees to accept all vouches by the domain securityauthority in regards to the validity of a domain account. Because of thepresence of this implicit trust, the local security authority allows anydomain user to access the host either interactively or across thenetwork and access resources on the host, subject obviously to theindividual access control specifications protecting these resources.

In this manner, a large number of hosts may join a domain and the set ofall machines joined to the domain in effect identities the bounds of thedomain. A domain user account can thus be authenticated by the domainand access resources on any host that is joined to that domain.

Trust Relationships 16

Note that in order for an information system to be able to scale andinteroperate with other information systems, there needs to be a way tointegrate two or more independent security domains. The means by whichtwo or more independent security domains integrate to extend theinformation system involves the establishment and use of trustrelationships 16.

A trust relationship 16 establishes a trust between the securityauthorities for each of the security domains and this trust essentiallyrepresents a contract between the two security authorities whereby thesecurity authority in the trusting domain agrees to accept a vouch bythe security authority in the trusted domain for the validity of anauthenticated user account from the trusted security domain. From thispoint on, a user (account) from the trusted domain can access resourcesin the trusting domain subject to any access control checks in place onresources (i.e. IT and information assets) in the trusting domain, justas though a user from the trusting domain itself could access theseresources. In this manner, a set of security domains can be connected tomeet the needs of even very large information systems.

Authentication

Authentication also requires the ability to uniquely identify entities.In most systems, there generally exists a notion of a securityidentifier (commonly referred to as a SID in some systems) that servesto uniquely identify a user account in the system. It may be noted thatin addition to users, even hosts 17 and/or services running on thesehosts could have a unique local or domain identity and thus could have alocal or domain user account which may be used to authenticate to thedomain. Also, as noted above, if there exists a trust relationshipbetween two domains, then users with accounts in the trusted domain mayaccess resources hosted in the trusting domain just like they wouldaccess resources stored on hosts that belong to their own domain.

In most systems, SIDs are used to specify the entity to which access isbeing granted in an authorization intent specification that protectsinformation or an IT asset. Thus, every entity that has a user accountin the system is uniquely identified by a SID.

There also exists one other type of entity with which a SID isassociated—that entity is that of a security collective, most commonlyimplemented as a security group. A security collective, such as asecurity group, is used to specify authorization intent for a collectionof users. Security groups can either belong to a domain or to a host.Domain security groups are typically stored in the enterprise directoryservice and local security groups are usually stored in the localsecurity database. Each security collective, referred to from hereon asa security group for convenience also has a unique SID associated withit.

As such, any entity that has a SID associated with it is commonlyreferred to as a security principal.

Authentication almost always involves the presence of a shared secretbetween a user and the trusted authority, and the process ofauthentication involves the user somehow proving to the trustedauthority that issued the account and as such is authoritative for it,that he or she or it is in the know of the shared secret. The means bywhich a user may authenticate to the trusted authority can vary andtypically involve providing proof of possession of a shared secret, viaone or more factors of authentication, such as the use of a password, ora physical possession from which a secret can be independently inferred,or the use of some aspect of the human body which could be used touniquely identify the user to the system.

Authorization

Once a user is authenticated by the trust authority, he or she mayproceed to access IT and information assets that belong to the securitydomain subject to individual, and optionally, collective access control(i.e. authorization) intents individually protecting these IT andinformation assets.

Access control or authorization works in most security systems works asdescribed below.

Each information and IT asset is represented in the underlying operatingsystem as a securable resource 19, in that the system provides the meansby which the resource can be protected. There typically exists aresource manager in the operating system that is, amongst other things,responsible for ensuring authorized access to all securable resources.In most systems, each securable resource is protected by some sort of anindividual authorization list 20, which is typically attached to theresource or in other cases, indirectly governs the access to thatsecurable resource. Each such authorization list is typically comprisedof a set of authorization entries which are usually considered the unitof authorization intent specification in the system. Each individualauthorization entry within the authorization list specifies the natureof authorized (or for that matter unauthorized) access for a specificsecurity principal in the system. Authorization lists are commonlyreferred to as access control lists (ACLs) and the individualauthorization entries that comprise an ACL are commonly referred tosimply as access control entries (ACEs).

A user account may be added to any number of security groups 22 for thepurposes of enabling the specification of access control for acollective of users. Thus a user account may belong to one or moresecurity groups and ACEs in ACLs of securable resources in a system mayspecify authorization intent for security principals, which include useraccounts and security groups.

After a user is successfully authenticated by the domain securityauthority 15 or local security authority 171, in most implementations,the system proceeds to create what is commonly referred to as an accesstoken for the user. An access token is merely a collection of the user'sSID and the SIDs of any and all groups to which the user belongs. Incertain implementations, there may exist different types of groups, eachof which may have certain system-defined constraints in regards to theiruse. Additionally, in certain implementations, not all of a user'sgroups may always be added to a user's access token. The determinationof which groups to add to a user's access token is usually governed by awell-defined and implemented token generation algorithm which may takeinto account multiple factors when deciding whether or not to add theSID of a specific group to the user's access token. It may also be notedthat the description of the generation of the access token is highlysimplified here and in reality may be more complex and implementationdependent.

It may further be noted that in addition to SIDs, in someimplementations, additional authorization elements may be added to auser's access token. In certain systems, these additional authorizationelements represent certain system wide authorization grants commonlyreferred to as user rights and/or privileges. These special types ofpermissions govern the access granted to a set of resources, larger thanindividual resources, an entire computing device being an example ofsuch a large resource.

In most systems, the act of engaging in computing involves theestablishment of a logon session on a host. A user may thus log oninteractively or via the network on to a system and a user always logson interactively to at least one host, and may further by logged onacross the network to other hosts. The act of logging on first andforemost involves authenticating the user and subsequently theestablishment of a logon session. It may also be noted that a useralways logs on to a host and it is the local security authority on thathost that us responsible for authenticating the user and upon successfulauthentication establishing a logon session for that user.

A user may logon to a host by using his/her local account or by usinghis/her domain account. If the local account is used, the process isusually referred to as logging on to the host and if the domain accountis used, the process is usually referred to as logging on to the domain.

During a local logon, because a local account is used, the localsecurity authority 171 itself authenticates the user and upon successfulauthentication proceeds to build an access token for the user. In thiscase, the access token would include the SIDs of all local groups towhich that local user account belongs on that host.

During a domain logon, because a domain account is used, the localsecurity authority 171 forwards the authentication request to the domainsecurity authority 15 which then proceeds to authenticate the user andupon successful authentication proceeds to build a packet that containsa list of all domain groups that user belongs to transitively andfinally sends this set of groups back to the local authority. The localauthority then proceeds to generate the access token which consists ofthe user's SID plus the transitive list of the user's domain groupmemberships plus the transitive list of any local groups to which theuser or one of his domain group SIDs might belong. As mentioned earlier,the local security authority may also proceed to add any othersystem-wide entitlements commonly represented by user-rights orprivileges to the access token. It may also be noted that thedescription of the generation of the access token is highly simplifiedhere and in reality may be more complex and implementation dependent.The access token is then successfully generated and attached to a logonsession. This logon session uniquely represents the computing session ofthe logged on user on that host.

Once a logon session is established for the user, every action thatoccurs for the user on the host happens in the context of a process,which in most operating systems is a unit of overall execution. Strictlyspeaking, there exists the notion of threads which may be considered asthe real unit of execution, but every thread belongs to a parent processwithout which it cannot exist and from that perspective, a process canbe treated as a unit of overall execution. Note that there may existmultiple processes running on a system for that user. Attached to eachprocess is the access token for that user.

Every action thus happens in the in the context of a process attached towhich is the user's access token. Any action that involves accessing asecurable resource is subject to an access check that takes into accountthe user's access token and the securable resource's access controllist. The access check determines whether or access is granted, and ifso, the action is allowed to proceed.

In this manner authorization protects all securable resources in aninformation system.

FIG. 4 depicts a diagram illustrating the components of an access check.

Any action that involves accessing a securable resource is subject to anaccess check.

As illustrated in the figure, a user 23 attempts 240 to access asecurable resource 24 that is stored on a host 241. The act of accessinga securable resource is always performed on the behalf of the user by aprocess and as such always involves an access check. The access checkdetermines whether or not the access that is being attempted orrequested is in fact authorized.

The access check thus takes into account the set of authorizationintents protecting the securable resource. As mentioned previously, asecurable resource is protected by an ACL 242. In strict technicalparlance, the ACL may additionally belong to a data structure commonlyknown as a security descriptor (SD). A security descriptor usuallyconsists of the ACL of the object, and usually also contains objectownership information and audit intent. Also, as mentioned previously,an ACL contains a list of ACEs each of which specifies a specificpermission for a security principal, the identity of which is specifiedin the form of SIDs.

Thus, in order for an access check to validate whether or not a userattempting access to a securable resource is in fact authorized suchaccess, it should further take into account the SID of the userhim/herself and list of all group SIDs to which the user might belong.Note that a group to which the user belongs may further be a part ofanother group. The access token generation process ensures that all suchSIDs are added to the access token 232.

Thus, two components come into play during an access check—the ACEs inthe ACL 242 of the securable resource to which the user is requestingaccess and the access token 232 of the user. The ACEs in the ACL definethe entirety of permissions that are authorized for various users andgroups in the system and the user's access token contains and denotesthe users SID and the set of all group SIDs to which the user may belongdirectly or transitively.

The specifics of the access check are a function of its implementationwhich is turn is a function of the underlying operating system uponwhich the information system is running.

The following is a description of how the access check takes in place inthe world's most dominant set of operating systems, MicrosoftCorporation's Windows family of operating systems. As such most othercommercial and publicly developed operating systems deploy a similarapproach in their access check mechanisms. It may also be noted thatthis description of the access check is primarily intended to illustratethe concept thereof.

In Windows, when a thread that belongs to a process that is operating onbehalf of the user tries to access a securable object, an access checkdetermines whether or not the requested access should be allowed. Thisaccess check takes into account the ACL on the securable object and theaccess token of the user. If the object does not have an ACL, the systemgrants access; otherwise, the system looks for ACEs in the object's ACLthat apply to the thread. Each ACE in the object's ACL specifies thepermissions that are allowed or denied for a security principal. Thesystem compares the SID (denoting a security principal) listed in eachACE to the SIDs that are present in the thread's access token.

The system examines each ACE in sequence until one of the followingevents occurs: (i) an access-denied ACE explicitly denies any of therequested access rights to one of the trustees listed in the thread'saccess token, or (ii) one or more access-allowed ACEs for trusteeslisted in the thread's access token explicitly grant all the requestedaccess rights, or (iii) all ACEs have been checked and there is still atleast one requested access right that has not been explicitly allowed,in which case, access is implicitly denied.

If it is found that there exists an access-denied ACE that explicitlydenies any of the requested access rights to one of the trustees listedin the thread's access token, then access is denied.

If there exist one or more access-allowed ACEs for trustees listed inthe thread's access token that explicitly grant all the requested accessrights, then access is allowed

If all ACEs in the ACL have been checked and there is still at least onerequested access right that has not been explicitly allowed, then accessis implicitly denied.

In this manner, the access check and the various components ofauthorization together work to protect securable resources and implementauthorization in a Windows operating system based information system.

FIG. 5 depicts a user and his cumulative security affiliations.

Security collectives are used to simplify the specification ofauthorization intent for a collection of users and simplify themanagement of access control in an information system. They are alsoused to group a collection of users together for a variety of othersecondary purposes, such as having a specific set of security policiesapply to a specific set of users.

In most systems, the notion of a security group is used to representsecurity collectives and to facilitate the means by which users can beaggregated for the purposes of specifying authorization intent to acollective. In some operating systems that offer roles-based accesscontrol, security collectives take the form of administrative roles andthe administrators of the system provision access based onadministrative roles. In such a system, users are typically assigned tovarious roles, each of which may be granted some access somewhere in thesystem.

It is clearly evident that a user's security collectives, also referredto as his or her affiliations, play a vital role in the set ofentitlements that he or she may have across the information system.

In this figure, we see an example of a user and his securityaffiliations.

John Doe is an employee of an organization. He is employed at theorganization's New York office and works in the Sales division of thecompany. As the diagram depicts, he is a member of numerous securitygroups across the organization, each of which is owned by some assetowner or group. Each of these security groups serves to aggregate usersfor the purposes of specifying authorization intent and as such thesegroups are used to provision access to various resources across theorganization's information system.

It is evident from the illustration that John Doe's user account 500 isa direct member of seven groups 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506 and 507.Note that a simple inspection of the user's account will reveal thatJohn Doe is only a member of seven groups. However, as we can see, eachof these seven groups in turn is a member of numerous other groups. Infact, closer inspection reveals that John Doe is transitively a memberof fourteen security groups. This fact would not be evident upon theinspection of John Doe's account itself, or upon the isolated inspectionof any group to which he belongs. Notice that in some cases, John ismember of a group which in turn is a member of yet another group, whichin turn is a member of still yet another group.

From an access control perspective, ultimately, John is a member of allthese groups and thus is cumulatively granted the entirety of allpermissions that may exist anywhere in the system for any one thesefourteen groups. In effect, John is entitled to performing the set ofall administrative tasks that are cumulatively authorized by thepresence of the entire set of permissions that exist across theinformation system for all these fourteen groups.

For example, if on some host in the Chicago office, there exists a filefolder to which someone has granted the Global Employees security groupwrite access, that one single permission will allow John to create filesand folders in that existing file folder. On a similar note, if in theenterprise directory service, someone has granted the Sequoia Team MainMembers security group the ability to create user accounts or createadditional security groups, then in effect, John will be entitled tocreating new users and security groups in the system. Note that none ofthese permissions were directly granted for John, but in fact weregranted for a security group of which John is a member transitively i.e.John happens to be a member of that group by virtue of an intermediatesecurity group of which he is a member and which is a member of thatgroup to which access is granted on that resource.

It will be instantly apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art thatthe use of security affiliations in access control while having itsadvantages, also has its disadvantages in that it makes the task ofassessing the cumulative set of a user's entitlements complex andnon-trivial.

It is also clearly evident that any attempt to accurately assess thecumulative set of a user's entitlements must take into account thecumulative set of a user's affiliations.

On a related note, it is also evident that for an access check toaccurately protect a securable resource, it must take into account thecumulative set of a user's affiliations. It is thus important tounderstand how an operating system takes the cumulative set of a user'saffiliations into account.

As mentioned earlier, in most operating systems, upon which informationsystems are founded, the notion of a security group comes closest tothat of a security collective. So here we examine the nature and thevarious types of security groups, where they are stored and how they endup in an access token of a user.

As mentioned earlier, there are two common types of securityauthorities—a domain security authority which is authoritative for alluser accounts in a domain, and a local security which is authoritativefor all local user accounts on a host. Similar to user accounts,security groups also belong to one of the two authorities, i.e. thedomain security authority or the local security authority. Thus thereexist two primary types of groups—domain groups and local groups. Domaingroups can typically contain as members any user account from thedomain. Local groups can typically contain as members any local useraccounts, and if the machine is a part of a domain, any user accountsfrom the domain.

When a user is authenticated, an access token is generated for him bythe local security authority.

If the user being authenticated is using a local user account, then thelocal security authority determines the set of all local groups to whichthe user may belong directly and transitively and adds this SIDsrepresenting this entire set of groups to the user's access token.

If the user being authenticated is using a domain user account, then thedomain security authority determines the set of all domain groups towhich the user may belong directly and transitively and packages thisSIDs representing this entire set of domain groups to the which theuser's belongs and sends it back to the local authority of the computerat which the user is attempting a logon from. The local securityauthority then proceeds to determine the set of all local groups towhich the user (and any domain groups to which he belongs) may belongdirectly and transitively and in this evaluation takes into account thelist it received from the domain security authority. After thisdetermination is done, it adds to the list of SIDs received, the SIDs ofany local groups to which the user might belong, and inserts thiscumulative list of SIDs to the access token of the user.

It may be noted that the manner described above, in which an accesstoken is generated, is representative of most operating systems today,and in fact is a fair representation of how access token generationworks in Microsoft's Windows family of operating systems. It may furtherbe noted that in the interest of brevity, details known to those ofordinary skill are left out for clarity.

It may further be noted that description of the access token isgeneration process is primarily intended to illustrate how securityaffiliations come into play during an access check.

FIG. 6 depicts information/IT asset and the authorization list thatprotects the asset.

Information and IT assets manifest themselves as securable resourcesthat are afforded protection by the various security controls that aredelivered by the operating system that underlies an information system.As mentioned earlier, securable resources are protected by authorizationlists, more commonly referred to as access control lists (ACLs). Anaccess control list consist of a set of zero or more access controlentries (ACEs) each of which individually specifies a specific type ofaccess for a specific security principal (i.e. user or group).

In this figure, we see an example of an IT asset and the authorizationlist that serves to protect it.

The IT asset depicted in the example is a user account for the user JohnDoe. As is evident, this IT asset is represented by a common operatingsystem data-structure referred to as an object and is manifested in thesystem as an instance of an object of type user in the organization'sdirectory service.

We also observe that this securable object is protected by an accesscontrol list (ACL) 251, which is comprised of a set of individual accesscontrol entries (ACEs) each of which specifies a set of permissions forsome security principal.

In particular, we observe that:

-   -   The first ACE 252 allows the security principal        S-1-5-123-456-789-001 Read Property access to the User Name        attribute on this object. This ACE thus grants the user or group        represented by this SID the ability to read the value of the        User Name attribute on this user object.    -   The second ACE 253 allows the security principal        S-1-5-123-456-789-021 Read Property access to the User Account        Control attribute on this object. This ACE thus grants the user        or group represented by this SID the ability to read the value        of the User Account Control attribute on this user object.    -   The third ACE 254 allows the security principal        S-1-5-123-456-789-015 Write Property access to the User Name        attribute on this object. This ACE thus grants the user or group        represented by this SID the ability to modify the value of the        User Name attribute on this user object.    -   The fourth ACE 255 allows the security principal        S-1-5-123-456-789-406 Write Property access to the User Account        Control attribute on this object. This ACE thus grants the user        or group represented by this SID the ability to modify the value        of the User Account Control attribute on this user object.    -   The fifth ACE 256 allows the security principal        S-1-5-123-456-657-051 Create Child access to the User Name        attribute on this object. This ACE thus grants the user or group        represented by this SID the ability to create new objects under        this object in the directory store hierarchy.    -   The sixth ACE 257 allows the security principal        S-1-5-123-456-789-089 Delete Child access on this object. This        ACE thus grants the user or group represented by this SID the        ability to delete any existing objects under this object in the        directory store hierarchy.    -   The seventh ACE 258 allows the security principal        S-1-5-123-456-789-005 Modify Permissions access on this object.        This ACE thus grants the user or group represented by this SID        the ability to modify the permissions associated with this        object.    -   The eighth ACE 259 allows the security principal        S-1-5-123-456-789-001 Modify Owner on this object. This ACE thus        grants the user or group represented by this SID the ability to        modify the owner of this object.

Each ACE thus specifies authorization intent for a specific securityprincipal. In particular, the ACE specifies the precise type oflow-level permission that the security principal is authorized toperform. Strictly speaking, an ACE can also specify the precise type oflow-level permission that the security principal is explicitlyprohibited from performing on that object. An ACE can thus be one of twomain types—an ALLOW ace or a DENY ace. An ALLOW ace is used to specify apermission that the user is allowed to perform. A DENY ace is used tospecify a permission that the user is prohibited from performing.

It should be noted that in most implementations objects in an operatingsystem are organized in the form of a hierarchical structure. Thus eachobject has at least one parent in the hierarchy and each object may havezero or more child objects. It should be further noted that mostcommercial implementations allow for an ACE to be marked as inheritable.This capability allows the specification of authorization intent at asingle point in the hierarchy and has the effect of having specified theauthorization intent on an entire sub-tree of objects or a subsetthereof. To enable this capability, an ACE can be marked as inheritable.If an ACE is marked as inheritable, the system automatically ensuresthat a copy of the ACE is added to the ACL of every object in thesub-tree rooted at the object at which the ACE was applied. An ACE thuscontains certain flags that are used to indicate whether or not an ACEmay be inheritable and that are also used to determine whether or not aninherited ACE may be an effective ACE on an object.

An ACE is considered to be effective only if authorization intentspecified by an ACE is taken into account during an access check. An ACEcan be ineffective if it shows up in the ACL solely as a consequence ofthe fact that it was marked inheritable on a parent object and meant tobe inherited down to all objects in the sub-tree rooted at the objectwhere the original ACE was specified. In particular, certainimplementations also allow for the specification of specific objectclasses in ACEs, in that the authorization intent specified by an ACEwould only be taken into account during an access check, if the objecton which the ACE exists is of the same class as was specified in theACE. In consideration of this fact, an ACE that is specified to beapplicable on only a specified class of objects in only consideredeffective on objects of that class, and thus is considered to beineffective on all objects that are not instantiations of the specifiedclass.

The generally accepted norm is that unless required, object class typesare not specified and thus most ACEs by default are applicable and thuseffective on objects of all classes.

This fact is of particular relevance to this invention because whilethere may exist multiple ACEs in a securable objects DACL, not all ofthem may be taken into account during an access-check. Only those ACEsthat are considered effective on the object are taken into account. Thisfact is of relevance to the invention because the logic implemented inthe method and the system to determine the cumulative set of a user'sauthorization entitlements must only take into account the set of alleffective authorization entitlements and it must take all such effectiveauthorization entitlements into account.

Also, in general, most implementations allow for the specification ofthe following low-level permissions:

-   -   Read-ACL: The permission to read the ACL protecting the object    -   List-Child: The permission to view any child objects of an        object in the hierarchy    -   Read-Property: The permission to read the properties of the        object. It may be noted that it is the values of the properties        that as a whole make the object meaningful.    -   Write-Property: The permission to modify the values of the        properties of the object. It may be noted that it is the values        of the properties that as a whole make the object meaningful.    -   Create-Child: The permission to create child objects. This is        how the system controls the ability of a user to add an object        to the system.    -   Delete-Child: The permission to delete child objects. This is        how the system controls the ability of a user to add an object        to the system.    -   Modify-Owner: The permission to modify the ownership of the        object. By design, every object has an owner and the owner by        virtue of ownership has full-control over the object.        Full-control implies all permissions.    -   Modify-Permissions: The permission to modify the Security        Descriptor protecting the object. It may be noted that the ACL        is a part of an object's security descriptor.    -   Extended-Rights: In addition to the standard permissions        mentioned above, the system may require the presence of certain        specific permissions governing the ability to perform a specific        and usually critical task. All such special permissions fall        under the umbrella of extended-rights.

In addition, for some specific types of IT assets for which it may notbe meaningful to specify access control in a simple authorization list,there may exist other elements that can sufficiently provide the meansto specify authorization intent required for the adequate protection ofsuch an IT asset.

FIG. 7 depicts a diagram illustrating the relationship between anadministrative task/business function and the corresponding system-levelpermission that authorizes the administrative task/business function.

Note: The words “low-level” and “system-level” may be interchangeablyused.

In most information systems, there exists a relationship between anadministrative task or a business function and a corresponding low-leveltechnical operation on some unit of data in the system, in that theexecution of the task automatically involves the modification of thestate of the corresponding data to reflect the occurrence of thatadministrative task.

From an authorization perspective, this relationship provides the meansby which to control and specify the ability of a user or a group toperform a specific administrative task. In essence, if the systemprovides a means to specify who may perform the low-level operation (onsome unit of data) that corresponds to the high-level administrativetask, then in effect the system provides the means by which one mayspecify and control who may perform the high-level administrative task.

In this figure, we see an example that illustrates the relationshipbetween an administrative task and the presence of a low-levelpermission in an object's ACL that has the effect of authorizing theability of a specific security principal to perform that administrativetask on the IT asset represented by that object.

In this figure, an enterprise directory service 38 is depicted. Thisdirectory service contains thousands of objects, each of which representusers, groups and other similar types of IT assets.

The figure also indicates the presence of a container 41 named Users inthe directory service. This Users container contains a user account 42for John Doe, who is uniquely represented in the system by the SIDS-1-5-123-456-789-015. We also note that the owner of this user accountis S-1-5-123-456-789-001. Additionally, the figure indicates thepresence of two security groups, User Admins 39 and HelpDesk Admins 40,with SIDs S-1-5-123-456-789-026 and S-1-5-123-456-789-001 respectively.

We thus note the presence of the following three security principals inthe system:

-   -   User John Doe (S-1-5-123-456-789-015)    -   Group User Admins (S-1-5-123-456-789-026)    -   Group HelpDesk Admins (S-1-5-123-456-789-001)

The figure also displays the ACL on John Doe's user account. Inparticular we observe the presence of four ACEs 44, 45, 46, and 47 thatthe ACL is comprised of.

A simple inspection of the ACEs in the ACL on John Doe's user accountreveals the following:

-   -   First ACE 44 allows S-1-5-123-456-789-015 Write Property access        to User Password attribute    -   Second ACE 45 S-1-5-123-456-789-026 Read Property access to        Account Status attribute    -   Third ACE 46 allows S-1-5-123-456-789-026 Write Property access        to Account Status attribute    -   Fourth ACE 47 allows S-1-5-123-456-789-001 Reset Password        special permissions

Note that a simple inspection of the ACEs in an ACL only reveals that aset of security principals are allowed a set of low-level permissions onthis object. If one were to only have access to the information presentin the ACL, one could not infer the set of administrative tasks that thepermissions in the various ACEs in this ACL reveal to a user.

Let us assume for now that designers of this system have furnished thefollowing information (made available in some form) in regards to theuse of the various attributes on user accounts in this system:

-   -   The User Password attribute stores the user's password    -   The Account Status attribute represents the status of the        account i.e. enabled/disabled        In light of this additional information, we can now attempt to        infer the set of administrative tasks entitled by the        permissions in the various ACEs in this ACL:    -   The first ACE 44 allows S-1-5-123-456-789-015 write property        access to User Password attribute. In effect, this ACE allows        John Doe the ability to modify the User Password attribute and        thus we can infer that John Doe can perform the administrative        task of changing his password.    -   The second ACE allows 45 S-1-5-123-456-789-026 read property        access to Account Status attribute. In effect, this ACE allows        User Admins the ability to read the Account Status attribute and        thus we can infer that User Admins can perform the        administrative task of assessing the state of this user account.    -   The third ACE 45 allows S-1-5-123-456-789-026 write property        access to Account Status attribute. In effect, this ACE allows        User Admins the ability to modify the Account Status attribute        and thus we can infer that User Admins can additionally also        perform the administrative task of disabling this user account        and/or enabling this user account if and when it may be in a        disabled state.    -   The fourth ACE 47 allows S-1-5-123-456-789-001 Reset Password        special permissions. In effect, this ACE allows the HelpDesk        Admins the ability to reset John Doe's password and thus we can        infer that HelpDesk Admins can perform the administrative task        of resetting this user account

In effect, the inclusion of this additional information in an attempt toinfer the set of administrative tasks entitled by the various ACEs inthe ACL enabled us to successfully arrive at following inferences inregards to the entitlements of the following users:

-   -   User John Doe is entitled to perform the administrative task of        changing his account's password    -   All members of the group User Admins are entitled to perform the        administrative task of disabling the user account of user John        Doe    -   All members of the group User Admins are further entitled to        performing the administrative task of enabling the user account        of user John Doe if it is disabled.    -   All members of the group HelpDesk Admins are entitled to perform        the administrative task of resetting the password of user John        Doe user account

Thus, we have seen that the permissions specified (authorization intent)in the ACEs in the ACL of this user object entitled a set of users andgroups to perform one or more administrative tasks on the user accountrepresented by this object.

In this manner, every authorization intent specification entitles someuser of the system to perform some administrative task, or a setthereof. It may be noted though that without the availability ofadditional information that provided the mapping between a low-levelpermission and the corresponding administrative that it entitles theuser to, the mere inspection of authorization intent specifications in asystem does not provide any indication as to the set of administrativeentitlements enabled that the presence of these authorization intentspecifications.

-   -   NOTE: As noted earlier, in most information systems, there is        typically a one to one correspondence between the permission        specified in an authorization intent specification and a        specific system-level operation. This there typically also        exists a mapping between the set of resource-type specific        system-level operations (that may be authorized by permissions        specified in authorization intent specifications) and the set of        business or administrative tasks or functions that these        permissions have the effect of authorizing for an entity.        -   Thus, either a set of permission to administrative task            entitlements, or a set of system-level-operation to            administrative task entitlements may be used to assess the            administrative tasks entitled by the presence of specific            permissions in authorization intent specifications            protecting a securable resource.

In its entirety, the cumulative set of all authorization intentspecification that exist in a system in effect entitle various users ofthe system to perform various administrative tasks on various IT andinformation assets in the system.

Related Discussion

As mentioned earlier, every information system is usually a connectedcollection of hosts, computing services and users. We also saw earlier,that the primary purpose of an information system is to allow its usersto engage in computing and go about executing on their businessfunctions, and this typically involves the creation, consumption,communication and storage of information assets.

Thus there exists a well-defined universe of administrative tasks thatcan be carried out in an information system. This well-defined universeof administrative tasks can almost always be grouped into a finite setof categories. Some common categories of administrative tasks in aninformation system include, and are not limited to account management,host management, resource management, access management, networkmanagement etc. Furthermore, because the notion of an administrativetask is for practical purposes meaningless without the presence of userswho may engage in them, it is meaningful to think of a collection ofusers who may be responsible for each category of administrative tasks.Note that there may be very well exist multiple collections of users,each engaging in the same category of administrative tasks, albeit witha different scope. Thus there clearly exists in every informationsystem, a need to be able to control and authorize the ability of usersor collections thereof to execute an administrative task or a collectionthereof.

It may be noted that while the notion of an administrative task and itsexecution thereof makes complete sense from a human perspective, itmakes virtually no sense from a computing device's perspective in thatall that a computing device natively understands is operations on bitsof data represented as signals in an ocean of memory cells. An operatingsystem does add at least one layer of abstraction and provides theprovision to specify fundamental operations such as read and write onunits of data. But even at this level of abstraction, the notion of anadministrative task and its execution thereof cannot be represented inthe computer system.

Thus the designers of an information system are usually required tocreate an implicit mapping between an administrative task and acorresponding low-level operation that represents the execution of thattask in the information system. The designers of an information systemare further required to embed a notion of these implicit mappings in theimplementation of the system and additionally provide documentation tothe users of the system to educate them in regards to the existence ofthis mapping and the details thereof.

For example, consider a simple category of tasks associated withmanaging user accounts. The following user account management relatedadministrative tasks immediately come to mind—the creation of a useraccount, the naming of a user account, the setting of a password for theuser account, the optional disabling of a user account and a finaldeletion of such an account at some point in time in the future.

The designers of the system need to provide the means to (i) representuser accounts in the system (ii) allow the users of the system to beable to perform the various functions associated with user accountmanagement and (iii) allow the users or administrators of the system tospecify authorization intent governing who can perform these functionsassociated with user account management. While the designers have a lotof flexibility in designing the system to address this requirement,these requirements need to be addressed.

In regard to (i) above, in most implementations, such a requirement istypically addressed by choosing a specific data structure that thesystem understands to represent user accounts. The second item (i.e.(ii)) is typically addressed by first making a determination of thecomplete set of administrative tasks that may be involved in useraccount management and subsequently mapping each of these administrativetasks to a corresponding low-level system function on some subset ofdata related to that user account.

For example, if a system implements user accounts as objects of aspecifically defined object class called user, then an instance of thisobject class usually uniquely identifies a unique user account. Inaddition, perhaps the various attributes defined to be members of thatobject class might be designed to store specific information eachrelating to a specific aspect of the user account and by extension, theact of performing a user account management related task on this usermight involved the low-level act of modifying the value of a specificattribute on the object.

In this example, let us further assume that the system designers definedan attribute called account-status to denote the status of the account.The system designers further specified that a value of 1 would indicatethat the account was a valid active account and that a value of 0 wouldindicate and mean that the account is in a disabled state.

Thus, in specifying an attribute on an account and further specifyingthe meaning of specific values that the attribute takes on, thedesigners of the system have implemented a means to denote a specificaspect of the user account. It is evident that it is implied here theact of disabling a user account involves modifying the account-statusattribute on that user account and setting it to 0. It is furtherimplied that the act of enabling a disabled user account also involvesmodifying the account-status attribute on that user account but settingit to 1.

Now in regards to (ii) above, continuing the same example, the designersof the system could provide a user-interface that provides a meaningfulvisual rendition of the user account and that provides the ability todisable and enable user accounts.

In regards to (iii) above, the system designers need to provide themeans by which the users of a system could entitle or authorize someonethe ability to disable and enable user accounts. In other worlds, thedesigners of a system in effect need to additionally provide the meansto specify access control for the universe of all administrative tasksin the system. The designers may choose to create a large unique list ofpermissions corresponding to the ability to perform each uniqueadministrative task or they may choose to create a small common set ofpermissions corresponding to generic low-level operations such that thetarget of the operation is specifiable.

For example, the designers could choose to create two special permissiontitled Disable User Account and Enable User Account and implement logicsuch that the system understands the meaning of these specialpermissions and exposes the same in some UI. The benefit of this choiceis that there would exist a unique permission for every singleadministrative task in the system. The drawback of this choice is thatbecause the universe of administrative tasks in a system is very large,the implementation would be expensive, and as such this authorizationmodel would not extensible.

An alternate choice would be design a permission scheme wherein thesystem might only have a small set of basic low-level permissions foreach low-level operation such as read-attribute, write-attribute,create-object, delete-object etc. but that the system would allow forthe specification of the specific attribute or object, as the case maybe, to be specified along with the permission. So for example, thefollowing permission would be the one used to control whether or not auser could disable a user account or enable a disabled useraccount—write-property to Account-Status attribute on specific userobject. Note that in such a scheme, the system is merely allowing theuser to specify permissions for a low-level operation that correspondsto a high level administrative task. Note further that the designers ofthe system must then provide to the users a list of mappings from thehigh level administrative tasks to the specific low level operations ona specific class of objects, so that the users could then specifyauthorization intent and in effect confer various entitlements forbusiness functions over other users.

In such a scheme, the documented user mapping may be important to beingable to successfully address requirement (iii) above. In other words,without the knowledge contained in this mapping list, there would be noway for users to authorize specification intent.

Yet another important consequence of the implementation of such a schemeis that the inference of the authorization intents granted would alsohave to be reverse-mapped to arrive at a list of entitlements conferredupon a user in terms of the various administrative tasks that they areallowed to perform. In other words, a user would have to infer from thepresence of a permission such as write-property to Account-Statusattribute on specific user object, that the security principal specifiedalong with the permission is entitled to disabling the user account inwhose access control list this permission exists and further that thesame security principal is also entitled to enabling this user accountwere it to be in a disabled state.

As a matter of fact, in most commercial implementations of operatingsystems, it is this second scheme that is used for providing the meansto control access to resources and to specify and infer authorizationintent.

The following serves as a partial sample list of a documented mappingthat might be provided by the designers of an information system to itsuser:

Administrative Corresponding system-level # Category Administrative Taskoperation permission required 1 Account Mgmt Create a user accountCreate-child on parent container 2 Account Mgmt Delete a user accountDelete on user object 3 Account Mgmt Modify account holder nameWrite-property on username attribute of corresponding user object 4Account Mgmt Disable user account Write-property on auk attribute ofcorresponding user object 5 Account Mgmt Enable user accountWrite-property on uac attribute of corresponding user object . . .Account Mgmt . . . 51 Account Mgmt Reset account password Extended-rightReset-password on corresponding user object 52 Group Mgmt Create a groupCreate-child on parent container 53 Group Mgmt Delete a group Delete ongroup object 54 Group Mgmt Modify group membership Write-property onmember attribute of corresponding group object . . . Group Mgmt . . . 78Group Mgmt Modify group type Write-property on type attribute ofcorresponding group object 79 Host Mgmt Add host to domain User-rightAdd host to domain on domain root 80 Host Mgmt Rename host nameWrite-property on name attribute of corresponding computer object . . .Host Mgmt . . . 151 Network Mgmt Add DHCP server to networkWrite-property on add-dhcp-ok attribute of corresponding site object 152Network Mgmt Configure DHCP server Write-property on options attributeof corresponding computer object 153 Network Mgmt Add DNS server tonetwork Membership in domain's Domain Admins group required 154 NetworkMgmt Configure DNS server Write-property on options attribute ofcorresponding computer object . . . Network Mgmt 246 Content Mgmt Addcontent on intranet server Content-publisher role entitled for user onintranet web-server . . . Content Mgmt 1362 Access Mgmt Access financialdatabase Database-readers role entitled for user in financial databasemanager . . . Access Mgmt 4000 . . . Mgmt . . .

-   -   NOTE: As this sample table indicates, there may exist more than        one authorization models in an information system, as there may        exist multiple resources managers, each of which may adhere to a        different authorization model. The most prevalent model is that        of object-based authorization; other models include role- and        rule-based authorization.

As it pertains to the assessment of a user's entitlements, those ofordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the assessment of auser's entitlements in a system that implements such a design involves adetailed and complete analysis of each and every individualauthorization intent specification across a very large number of ACEsthat exist in a large number of ACLs, each of which protects a singleinformation asset (i.e. resource) and further involves the act ofreverse-mapping low-level permissions into high level administrativetasks and that an accurate mapping further takes into account the natureof the resource and an associated inference of the scope ofadministrative authority.

This is yet another aspect of this invention.

One may further appreciate that in an information system in which theremay exist various types of resource managers, a complete and reliableassessment would additionally have to take into account numerousaspects, each of which would be unique to the specific type of resourcemanagers that may exist in the system. For example, should there exist aresource manager in the system that grants access to a specificinformation asset based on a roles-based access control model, theentitlement assessment method and system would additionally have to knowhow to assess a roles-based authorization scheme and subsequently infera user's entitlements set.

FIG. 8 depicts a diagram illustrating the different kinds ofauthorization intent specifications that may exist on a host in aninformation system.

An information system is comprised of a large set of information and ITassets, each of which may be stored in various forms in the underlyingsystem, and access to each of which may be facilitated by the a resourcemanager that implements one of a small set of authorization models.

This figure serves to depict the presence of a small number ofindividual resource managers that together provide protection for theset of all information and IT assets on a host, each of which may beimplemented by one of a specific set of low-level data structures thatthese resource managers understand and serve to protect.

This figure illustrates a host 48 and depicts the presence of numeroustypes of authorization intent specifications, each serving to protectsome information on that host.

The System Configuration Container 49 contains a hierarchical databaseof vital system information. Associated with each of the two systeminformation sets is a unique authorization intent specification. Forexample, as is illustrated, the security principal with the SIDS-1-5-123-456-789-001 is authorized to modify the system's hardwareconfiguration. Similarly, the security principal with the SDS-1-5-123-456-789-001 is authorized to modify the system's softwareconfiguration.

It may be noted that in this system depicted in this example, thegranularity of authorization intent specification governing themodification of the system's hardware and software configuration ishighly coarse. It may be additionally noted that a security principal(user or group) that is authorized to modify the system configuration bythe presence of these coarse authorization intent specification is ineffect also entitled to performing all the administrative tasks that mayinvolve the modification of the system's software or hardwareconfiguration.

For example, the following is a small sub-set of administrative tasksthat involve the modification of the system's software or hardwareconfiguration: (i) Enable local printing on this host by adding aprinting device and installing the associated device driver andapplication software required for the print management; (ii) Install anew application on this host; (iii) Modify the amount of RAM on thishost; (iv) Partition the hard-drive of this host; etc.

Thus in effect, the presence of the permissions specified in this SystemConfiguration Container entitle the user or group with SIDS-1-5-123-456-789-001 to perform all the tasks listed above and all thetasks that involve the modification of the system's configuration.

Similarly, the System Root Folder 51 which represents the root of ahierarchical file-system on this host has an ACL attached to it. It maybe noted that while not depicted in this illustration, each file in thisfile system also has a unique ACL attached to it. The ACEs in the ACLattached to the root of the hierarchical file system allow the user orgroup with HD S-1-5-123-456-789-002 to create files of type word in thisfile system and additionally allows this user or group to delete filesof all types in this file system. In effect, the permissions specifiedin the ACL of the root object entitle the user or group with SIDS-1-5-123-456-789-002 to create information assets of type word andadditionally entitle this user or group to destroy any and allinformation assets that may reside in the file system on this host.

On a similar note, the Company Financials Database 52 is also hosted onthis system and has an ACL attached to it. The ACEs in the ACL of thisdatabase allow the user or group with SID S-1-5-123-456-789-010 tocreate records in the Accounts Receivable table, and allow the user ofgroup with HD S-1-5-123-456-789-011 to create records in the AccountsReceivable table. In effect these permissions entitle the user or groupwith SID S-1-5-123-456-789-010 to perform the administrative task ofmodifying the list of entities to which payment is due and entitles theuser or group with SID S-1-5-123-456-789-011 to perform theadministrative task of modifying the list of entities from whom paymentis due.

Finally, the illustration also depicts the presence of authorizationintents that serve to protect the host itself. The Systems SecurityPolicy store 50 contains a set of authorization intent specifications inthe form of system defined user-right and value pairs. Each one of thesesystem defined user-rights specifies and controls a specific set ofactions that a user may perform on this system. Associated with each oneof these system defined user-rights is a value that serves to specifythe user or group to whom the user-right may be granted.

Thus, as illustrated in the figure, there exist the following userrights assignments in the system:

-   -   Allow Logon Interactively: S-1-5-11    -   Backup Files and Folders: S-1-5-123-456-789-015    -   Control System Processes: S-1-5-123-456-789-136    -   Add a New Device Driver: S-1-5-123-456-789-772    -   Modify System Security Policy: S-1-5-123-456-789-001

These user rights assignments in effect provision the followingentitlements:

-   -   The user or group with SID S-1-5-11 is entitled to performing        the administrative task of accessing this host interactively.    -   The user or group with S-1-5-123-456-789-015 is entitled to        performing the task of backing up information assets stores on        this host.    -   The user or group with S-1-5-123-456-789-136 is entitled to        performing the following administrative tasks—(a) Modifying the        protection afforded to this host (by virtue of being able to        control the local security authority system process), (b)        Controlling the availability of the Company Financials Database        (by virtue of the fact that it happens to be run as a system        process) etc.    -   The user or group with S-1-5-123-456-789-772 is entitled to        performing the following administrative tasks—(a) Modifying the        protection afforded to this host (by virtue of being able to add        a device driver to this system; all device drivers run in kernel        mode as does critical security code), (b) Modifying the hardware        configuration of this host (by virtue of being able to add a        hardware device driver) etc.    -   The user or group with S-1-5-123-456-789-001 is entitled to        performing the administrative task of provisioning access to        this host and additionally performing the administrative task of        provisioning access to any and every information and IT on this        host.

Thus, as illustrated by the example in this figure, we have seen thatthere exist various kinds of authorization intent specifications on ahost in an information system, each of which is enforced by a resourcemanager. We have also seen that each of these authorization intentspecifications entitles some user or group to performing someadministrative ask.

We may thus conclude that an accurate assessment of a user's cumulativeentitlements in a system involves an evaluation of numerous types ofauthorization intent specifications and additionally involves theinclusion the mappings between these various kinds of permissions (thatmay exist across these numerous types of authorization intentspecifications) and the corresponding administrative tasks that thepresence of such permissions serve to entitle.

FIG. 9 depicts a diagram illustrating the presence of a large number ofauthorization intent specifications in a subset of an informationsystem.

An information system is comprised of a large number of IT andinformation assets, each of which may be stored on file systems,databases and directory services across thousands of hosts in theinformation system.

In this diagram, we see an enterprise directory service 26 whichrepresents a subset of an information system. This directory servicecontains thousands of objects 27 each one of which represents a uniqueIT asset, such as user accounts and security groups, and each one ofwhich is protected by an ACL that is comprised of a set of ACEs thatindividually represent an authorization intent specification.

Thus, one may conclude that even a mere subset of an information systemcan contain thousands of objects representing information and IT assets,each of which is protected by an ACL, and associated with each of theseobjects are numerous individual authorization intent specifications,that in their entirety result in the presence of thousands ofauthorization intent specifications across this subset of an informationsystem.

Thus in a mere subset of an information system there exist thousands ofauthorization intent specifications that collectively entitled a largeset of users of the system to a large set of administrative tasks, theassessment of which would require the evaluation of each individualauthorization intent specification that exists in the system and theinference of the set of administrative tasks that correspond to theindividual permissions in each of these authorization intentspecifications.

FIG. 10 depicts a diagram illustrating the presence of a large number ofauthorization intent specifications across an entire information system.

This figure serves to communicate a measure of the vastness of a mediumto large information system and it serves to suggest that thedetermination of a user's entitlements in an information system involvesan examination and analysis of vast amounts of authorization entitlementspecifications across the information system.

The figure illustrates a medium to a large information system as oneconsisting of a multiple security domains 29, 31, thousands of hosts 32,users 310, groups 311 and hundreds of thousands of information and ITassets stored on thousands of hosts 33 or in enterprise directories ordatabases. The figure additionally illustrates the presence of hundredsof thousands of unit authorization intent specifications 35 (ACLs) andover a million individual authorization intent specifications (ACEs),each individually protecting the large number of information and ITassets that the information system is comprised of.

Furthermore, in a typical information system, information asset ownersspecify authorization intent for their owned assets. In doing so theymay specify permissions for a user or for a collective (i.e. group).Such a group could be one that they control the ownership of or could beon that they have no control over. The owner of a group and anyoneexplicitly or implicitly authorize to modify its membership couldadditionally modify the membership of the group, the act of which wouldinstantly impact the cumulative set of entitlements of the users who maynow have been added to the group or removed from the group. A group mayadditionally be a member of another group and so on. In effect, we seethat there exist numerous factors, many of which are dynamic in naturethat end up impacting the cumulative set of entitlements of a user, or acollective thereof.

The astute mind may also observe that there exist a large number ofinformation and IT assets, each owned and administered by one of a largenumber of users or collectives thereof in the information system. Insuch an information system, there may exist numerous authorizationintent specifications for a given user or a collective thereof,scattered across the information specified and put in place byindividual resource owners and administrators, thus resulting in asituation wherein neither the user him/herself or herself nor any onesingle entity (user, administrator, manager, group etc.) in theinformation system will have complete knowledge of the entirety of theuser's entitlements.

It is thus clearly evident that the cumulative entitlements of a user ofan information system of this scale would easily span large parts of theinformation system and would cumulatively authorize the user to performa large set of administrative operations on a large set of informationand IT assets across the information system. Furthermore it is alsoevident that neither the user him or herself nor any one single entity(user, administrator, manager, group etc.) in the information systemwill have complete knowledge of the entirety of the user's entitlements.

FIG. 11 depicts a flow diagram of a cumulative entitlements assessmentmethod in accordance with the invention

This cumulative access entitlement assessment method assesses cumulativeaccess as follows:

The method determines the cumulative set of security affiliations of theentity whose access entitlements are to be assessed. For example, insome embodiments, if the entity were a user, the method determines theset of security groups to which the user may directly or indirectlybelong by examining the group membership of all security groups in thesystem to determine all security groups to which the user belongsdirectly and recursively performing the same examination for allsecurity groups to which the user directly belongs to finally arrive atthe user's cumulative set of security group memberships. This may beaccomplished, for example, by configuring a processor through programinstructions to command reading of data in data structures containingsecurity group membership information, to determine from the data thesecurity groups to which the user belongs, and to command storage inmemory, volatile or non-volatile, of data indicating the security groupsto which the user belongs.

The method then determines the cumulative set of authorization intentspecifications that specify access for the entity or any of his securityaffiliations, across the specified scope of the access assessment. Forexample, in some embodiments, if the entity were a user, and theresources specified within the scope of the assessment were protected byaccess control lists (ACL), wherein ACL were comprised of a set ofaccess control entries (ACEs), wherein each ACE specified some form ofaccess for some entity, such as a user or a security group, then, themethod examines the entity specified in every ACE in every ACL on everyresource that is within the scope of the assessment, and based on theseexaminations, make a determination of all ACEs that specify some form ofaccess for either the entity himself or for some security group to whichthe user directly or indirectly belongs. Again, in many embodiments thisis accomplished by configuring a processor to command reads ofappropriate data structures, to compare the data in the data sectorswith data indicating security groups of the user, and to command storagein memory of the results of the comparison.

The method then determines the cumulative system-level access granted tothe entity by the entity's cumulative set of authorization intentspecifications. For example, in some embodiments, if the entity were auser, and access control entries (ACEs) were the unit of anauthorization intent specification, then the method would examine thepermissions specified in each individual ACE in the user's cumulativeset of authorization intent specifications, and determine thesystem-level access or operation authorized by the permissions grantedin the ACE to arrive at a set of all system-level operations that areauthorized for this user and for all his security group memberships.Again, in many embodiments this is accomplished by configuring aprocessor via program instructions, resulting in the processor reading,comparing, and storing data as appropriate.

The method then determines the cumulative access entitlement conferredupon the entity by mapping the entity's cumulative system-level accessto the entity's cumulative set of access entitlements. For example, insome embodiments, if the entity were a user, and a determination of theuser's cumulative set of authorized system-level operations had beenmade, the method would then examine each system-level operationauthorized for this user and for each system-level operation authorized,use a set of mappings from system-level operations to administrativetasks to determine the administrative task that corresponds to thisauthorized system-level operation, and in this manner, determine the setof all administrative tasks that this user is entitled to perform withinthe part of the system that constituted the scope of the assessment.Again, in many embodiments this is accomplished by configuring aprocessor via program instructions, resulting in the processor reading,comparing, and storing data as appropriate. In many embodiments theprocessor is also configured to command display of the data, indicativeof the cumulative access entitlement of for example the user, on adisplay.

In this manner, the cumulative access entitlement method determines anentity's cumulative access entitlements within the part of the systemthat constituted the scope of the assessment.

FIG. 12 depicts a flow diagram of a further embodiment of a cumulativeentitlements assessment method in accordance with the invention

This figure serves to provide an overview of an embodiment of thecumulative access entitlement method.

As is depicted in the figure, an information system 69 is typicallycomprised of a set of entities 53, commonly referred to as users, a setof entity collectives 54, most commonly referred to as security groups,and a set of authorization intent specifications 55 that exist toprotect securable resources which represent information/IT assets andmay take various forms such as but not limited to hosts, folders, files,applications, databases, database content, directory services, directoryservice content etc.

The cumulative access entitlement assessment method determines thecumulative access entitlements conferred upon an entity of aninformation system.

The Client Preference (Input) Specification 57 process accepts manual orautomated user input that specifies the identity 58 of a specific entityin the information system, whose access entitlements are to be assessed.This step thus determines the identity of the specific entity 58, fromamong a set of entities 53 in the information system 69, whose accessentitlements are to be assessed.

-   -   Note: User input may also optionally involve the specification        of the scope of the assessment i.e. a specifiable subset of the        information system within which access entitlements are to be        assessed. In the absence of a specified scope, the method may        proceed to assess access across either the entire information        system or the most logical specifiable subset of the information        system.

The Cumulative Security Affiliation Determination 59 process involvesthe determination of the entity's cumulative set of securityaffiliations 60 based on the entity's identity 58, i.e. the set of allsecurity entity collectives in the system with which this entity 58 maybe affiliated, either directly or transitively, and which may be used inthe information system to specify some authorization intent on somesecurable resources in the information system. In most systems, entitycollectives or aggregators are manifested as security groups or securityroles, and accordingly, in such systems, a security affiliation ismanifested as a membership in some security group or the inclusion insome security role. This step thus determines the subset of all entitycollectives 60, from amongst the set of all entity's collectives 54 inthe information system 69, with which this entity 58 may be affiliated.

The Cumulative Authorization Intent Determination 61 process involvesthe determination of the entity's cumulative set of authorization intentspecifications 62, based on the entity's cumulative set of securityaffiliations 60, i.e. the set of all authorization intent specificationsthat exist within that portion of the information system that comprisesthe scope of the assessment, and that authorize some access either forthe entity 58 itself or for some entity collective with which thisentity 58 may be affiliated. In most systems, authorization intentspecifications take the form of access control entries (ACEs) which area part of access control lists (ACLs) which serve to protect thesecurable resource with which they are associated. This step thusdetermines the subset of all authorization intent specifications 62,from amongst the set of all authorization intent specifications 55 thatexist in the information system 69, that specify some form of access foreither the entity 58 itself, or for some entity collective with whichthis entity 58 may be affiliated i.e. the some entity collective whichbelongs to the entity's cumulative security affiliation set 60.

The Cumulative System-Level Access Determination 63 process involves thedetermination of the entity's cumulative set of system-level access 64across the specified scope of the information system, based on theentity's cumulative set of authorization intent specifications 62, i.e.the set of all system-level operations that the entity 58 is authorizedto perform, in view of all the permissions specified across the entity'scumulative authorization intent specification set 62 and in view of atleast some, and usually all pertinent, access check methodologiesimplemented in the information system. This step thus determines the setof all system-level operations 64, that are effectively authorized forthe entity 58, by virtue of the cumulative set of authorization intentspecifications 62 that exists across the specified scope of theinformation system for the entity 58 or any of its security affiliations60.

The Cumulative Access Entitlement Inference & Assimilation 65 processinvolves the determination of the entity's cumulative access entitlementset 66 across the specified scope of the information system, based onthe entity's cumulative system-level access grants 64 and based on a setof system-level operation to administrative task mappings 56 i.e. theset of all administrative tasks that the entity 58 is entitled toperforming, based on the entity's effective cumulative system-levelaccess 64 across the specified scope of the information system. This setof system-level operation to administrative task mappings 56 provide themappings required to determine the administrative task that correspondsto a system-level operation authorized on a specific type of securableresource. This step thus determines the set of all administrative tasks66 that the entity 58 is entitled to perform across the specified scopeof the information system, by virtue of the cumulative set ofauthorization intent specifications 62 that exists across the specifiedscope of the information system for the entity 58 or any of its securityaffiliations 60.

The Cumulative Entitlement Reporting (Output) 67 process reports theresults of the cumulative access entitlement 68, which are in effect thesame as 66, presented in a meaningful fashion.

In this manner, the cumulative access entitlement method determines theset of all administrative tasks 66 and thus the entity's cumulative setof access entitlements 68 across the specified scope of the informationsystem. It may be noted that 66 and 68 are tantamount to each other.

-   -   Note: It may be noted that steps one and six, as outlined above,        are optional non-essential aspects of this method, which could        easily be assimilated in steps two and five above respectively.

FIG. 13 depicts a diagram of an overview of the cumulative entitlementsassessment system.

This figure serves to provide an overview of an embodiment of acumulative entitlement system which implements the computing logic forthe method of cumulative entitlement assessment.

As is depicted in the figure, the system consists of seven modules, eachof which is responsible for a specific function, and these seven modulesare driven by a simple control flow engine 77.

-   -   Note: It may be noted that the requirement to have seven unique        modules is not an architectural limitation of this invention.        The method and the system of this invention can very well be        implemented in a single module or in multiple modules. The        distribution of the logical functions involved in the process of        cumulative access entitlements into seven modules is merely a        preference of the designers of the method and system.

The Control Flow Engine 77 serves to coordinate the functionality ofeach of the seven modules and to control the flow of the implementedcomputing logic from the beginning to the end of the assessment.

The Client Preference (Input) Specification Module 70 interacts with theclient of the system to determine the scope of the assessment i.e. adetermination of the specific sub-set of or the entirety of theinformation system and to optionally allow the client to specify analternate set of security credentials which may be used to accessvarious pieces of information during the course of the assessment. Thismodule also allows the user to specify the specific type of assessmentto be performed. Control is then passed to the appropriate module.

The Cumulative Security Affiliation Determination Module 71 determines auser's cumulative set of security affiliations. This module alsoprovides a facility to the client of the cumulative access assessmentsystem to specify the user for whom the assessment needs to beperformed.

The Cumulative Authorization Intent Determination Module 72 determinesthe set of cumulative authorization intents that exist for the userwithin the specified scope of the information system.

The Cumulative System-Level Access Determination Module 73 determinesthe cumulative set of system-level access authorized for the user withinthe specified scope of the information system.

The Cumulative Access Entitlement Inference & Assimilation Module 74infers and assimilates the user's cumulative administrative entitlementswithin the specified scope of the information system by mapping thecumulative system-level access authorized for the user to thecorresponding set of administrative tasks that the user is entitledacross the specified scope of the information system.

The Cumulative Entitlement Reporting (Output) Module 75 outputs theresults of the cumulative assessment with the user in a meaningfulmanner.

The Custom Security Access Assessment Module 76 is designed to beextensible and as such is responsible for delivering the entire set ofrelated custom security access assessments as may be specified.

FIG. 14 discloses a flow chart which describes the operation of theClient Preference (Input) Specification module

This figure serves to describe the logic implemented in an embodiment ofa Client Preference (Input) Specification module.

The logic implemented in this module begins by prompting the client ofthe system to specify the scope of the information system within whichthe assessment is to be performed.

-   -   NOTE: Note that while the client is prompted to specify a        security domain as a scope, in general, the module may allow the        user to input any valid subset of the information system the        boundary of which is specifiable. It may further be noted that        this use of a security domain as the unit of scope specification        is merely a preferred unit and as such it should be recognized        that it does not represent an architectural limitation for the        present invention. Examples of valid scopes include a security        domain or a set thereof, a node or a sub-tree in a directory        service, a computing device or a set thereof, a folder on a        file-system or a set thereof in a computing device, a set of        computing devices in a network segment, an application or a set        thereof running on a computing device, a database or a set        thereof in an application, a tables or a set thereof in a        database, etc.

The logic implemented in this module begins by saving the clientspecified scope in a variable called SCOPE; the SCOPE variable may beaccessible by all modules of the system.

The logic implemented in this module then proceeds to prompt the clientof the system to enter an optional set of credentials that may be usedin performing the various steps involved in the process of thisassessment. The logic implemented in this module then saves the clientspecified alternate credentials in a variable called CREDS; the CREDSvariable may be accessible by all modules of the system. In the absenceof any optionally specified credentials, the default set of credentialsis used, which is the set of credentials under which this system wasinvoked.

The logic implemented in this module then proceeds to present to theclient of the system a list of the various security assessments that thesystem is capable of performing.

The logic implemented in this module then saves the client specifiedsecurity assessment option in a variable called C (for choice); the Cvariable may be accessible by all modules of the system.

The logic implemented in this module then proceeds to invoke either theCumulative Security Affiliation Determination Module or the CustomSecurity Assessment Module, depending upon the choice specified by theclient of the system.

FIG. 15 discloses a flow chart which describes the operation of theCumulative Security Affiliation Determination module.

This figure serves to describe the logic implemented in an embodiment ofa Cumulative Security Affiliation Determination module.

The logic implemented in this module begins by binding to the securitydomain specified in the globally available SCOPE variable by using theclient specified credentials CREDS, or in the absence of any specifiedcredentials, using the default credentials. Binding generally involvesauthenticating to the security domain with valid credentials.

The logic implemented in this module then queries the security domain toobtain a list of all users in the security domain. This list of users isthen presented to the client and the client is asked to select a userfor whom the client would like the cumulative assessment performed. Theclient's choice is then stored in the globally available variable USER.

-   -   Note: It may be noted that the querying of the security domain        to obtain a list of users may be an optional aspect of this        module. The module could alternatively or additionally provide        the means to have the client directly specify a user for whom        the cumulative assessment is to be performed.

The logic implemented in this module then proceeds to obtain a list ofevery security collective that the user is directly affiliated with andstores this list in a global variable called USER_AFFL, which stands foruser affiliations. In most systems, the notion of security affiliationsis implemented by the use of security groups. Thus, in the flowchart,the word security group has been used in place of security affiliations.

-   -   Note: The systems and methods of this invention can process        virtually any type of security affiliation collective that may        be used in an information system to aggregate entities for the        purposes of specifying access intent. Common examples of such        security affiliations include security groups and security        roles.

Note that the words “security affiliations” and “security groups” may beinterchangeably used.

After the logic implemented in this module has obtained a list of allsecurity groups of which the user is a direct member, the logicimplemented in this module proceeds to determine the transitive set ofsecurity groups to which this user may belong, either directly orindirectly. This is an essential and vital determination because a usermay be a member of a group that is in turn a member of another group towhich access has been granted on some resource. This nested groupmembership will come into play during an access check and thus needs tobe taken into account for the purpose of assessing a user's cumulativeentitlements.

The logic implemented in this module employs recursion as a means ofdetermining the transitive set of security groups to which this user maybelong, either directly or indirectly. In effect, it employs a recursivefunction that takes USER_AFFL as input and recursively determines thelist of all security groups to which every member of USER_AFFL belongs.At the end of this recursive process, the logic implemented in thismodule has successfully determined the transitive set of security groupsto which this user may belong, either directly or indirectly; it thenproceeds to store this list of transitive group memberships in theglobal variable CUM_USER_AFFL, which stands for cumulative useraffiliations

-   -   Note: Most information/operating systems define and implement a        specific algorithm that governs the determination of the        cumulative set of a user's group memberships that would be taken        into account for the purposes access control. In most cases,        this algorithm usually comes into play during the establishment        of (some implemented notion of) a logon session that uniquely        identifies the user's computing session. This process is        commonly referred to as token generation. The token generation        algorithm defines a set of rules that govern the specific types        of security groups (of which the user is a member) that may be        added to the user's token.        -   This security affiliation module adheres to the rules set            forth by the underlying information/operating system's token            generation mechanism when transitively determining and            adding the cumulative set of security affiliations for the            user.

In this manner, at the end of this process, the CUM_USER_AFFL AUTH_LISTcontains a list of the user's security identifier and the identifier ofevery security group (i) of which the user may be a member, eitherdirectly or indirectly, and (ii) that would ordinarily be a part of theuser's token as generated by the underlying operating system when theuser logs on the system, and as would come into play during an accesscheck that would occur should the user attempt to access a securableresource in the specified portion of the information system that is thescope of this assessment.

It then proceeds to invoke the Cumulative Authorization Intent Discoverymodule.

FIG. 16 discloses a flow chart which describes the operation of theCumulative Authorization Intent Determination module.

This figure serves to describe the logic implemented in an embodiment ofa Cumulative Authorization Intent Determination module.

The logic implemented in this module binds to the security domainspecified in the globally available SCOPE variable by using the clientspecified credentials CREDS, or in the absence of any specifiedcredentials, using the default credentials. Binding generally involvesauthenticating to the security domain with valid credentials.

The logic implemented in this module then walks the through the entireset of securable resources in the security domain and examines in-depththe access control list (ACL) of each one of these securable resources.

-   -   NOTE: In most operating systems, there exists the notion of a        securable resource. A securable resource is one for which the        access control facilities of the operating system can provide        security. In most operating systems, securable resources are        protected by some form of an authorization intent specification,        most commonly referred to as an access control list, which may        be comprised of a set of individual authorization intent        specification, commonly referred to as access control entries,        each one of which essentially expresses the access specified for        a specific entity, such as a user or a set of users.        -   The logic implemented by the Cumulative Authorization Intent            Determination is capable of assessing and analyzing various            kinds of collective and individual authorization intent            specifications such as access control lists access control            entries, role definitions, privileges, user-rights and any            custom application or system security authorization intent            specification forms used for access control in an            information or operating system.        -   One of the most pervasively used form of collective and            individually used authorization intent specifications are            access control lists (ACLs) and access control entries            (ACEs) respectively, which are used in Microsoft's Windows            family of operating systems to protect securable resources            such as files, folders, directory service objects, registry            hives and keys, etc. In light of this fact, the description            of the methodology of this module uses ACLs and ACEs to            illustrate how the operations involved in this module. The            use of ACLs and ACEs is by no means an architectural            limitation of the system.

In particular, the logic implemented in this module, examines everyaccess control entry (ACE) in the ACL of each and every securable objectin the security domain and it proceeds to build a list called AUTH_LIST,each member of which is a two-tuple that consists of an identical copyof the ACE and the unique object identifier (Unique_Object_ID) of thesecurable resource, in the ACL of which, the ACE was found.

-   -   NOTE: It may be noted that every object in the security domain        has a unique identifier that serves to uniquely identify that        object.

In this manner, at the end of this sub-process, the AUTH_LIST contains alist of every ACE that exists in the security domain and associated witheach ACE in this list is the unique object identifier that uniquelyidentifies the securable resource in the ACL of which the ACE was found.

The logic implemented in this module then takes the CUM_USER_AFFL listand the AUTH_LIST and proceeds to create a new list called CUM_AUTH_LIST(also available to all modules), which is meant to be a subset of theAUTH_LIST and contain only those members of AUTH_LIST, in which the ACEspecifies some effective permission for a security identifier that alsoexists in the CUM_USER_AFFL.

It may not noted that CUM_AUTH_LIST now contains a list of every ACE inthe security domain that specifies some permission on some securableresource for either the user him or herself or for some group to whichthe user belongs directly or transitively.

In effect, the CUM_AUTH_LIST list contains a list that is comprised ofevery authorization intent specification in the specified scope thatspecifies some access either for the user, or for some security group towhich the user belongs, either directly, or indirectly. In addition,every member of this list also contains the unique identifier of thesecurable resource in the ACL of which this ACE exists.

Each entry in the CUM_AUTH_LIST table is a 2-tuple—{ACE,Unique_Object_Id}. It will be also apparent to those of ordinary skillin the art that this may be a highly intensive computation as it takesinto account two potentially large lists CUM_USER_AFFL and AUTH_LIST,involves the examination of every ACE in the AUTH_LIST and for everysuch ACE, involves a comparison of the SD in this ACE with a large setof SIDs that exist in the CUM_USER_AFFL list to finally arrives at athird large list CUM_AUTH_LIST. In an effort to make this process moreefficient, the implementation of this logic may employ the use ofadditional intermediate functions that make the SID comparisons moreefficient by an order of magnitude.

-   -   NOTE: It may be noted that the system and method of this        invention is not restricted or limited in any way to examination        and evaluation of ACLs and ACEs. In fact, the system may very        well handle a variety of different authorization intent        specification types, each of which may be consumed by a variety        of different resource managers. Thus, it should be recognized        that in no way does the use of ACLs and ACEs in the description        of the functionality of this module, or any other module,        represent an architectural limitation for the present invention.

After the logic implemented by this module has successfully determinedthe user's cumulative set of authorization intents in the specifiedscope, it proceeds to invoke the Cumulative System-Level AccessDetermination module.

FIG. 17 discloses a flow chart which describes the operation of theCumulative System-Level Access Determination module.

This figure serves to describe the logic implemented in an embodiment ofa Cumulative System-Level Access Determination module.

The module is tasked with determining the cumulative effective set ofsystem level access authorized to the user across the information systemor a specified subset thereof.

This module takes as input the CUM_AUTH_LIST which is the list of allACEs across the information system, or a specified subset thereof, eachof which individually specify some permission on some securable resourcefor either the user him or herself or for some group to which the userbelongs directly or transitively.

As mentioned previously, each entry in the CUM_AUTH_LIST table is a2-tuple—{ACE, Unique_Object_Id} where ACE is the access control entrywhich contains (i) a permission such as Read, Write, Create, Deleteetc., (ii) the identity of a subject for whom the permission isspecified, (iii) the type of access i.e. allowed or denied and (iv) andany optional qualification in regards to the access. The ACE thusspecifies the permissions authorized for some subject on the object itserves to protect, which is uniquely identified by Unique_Object_Id.

The logic implemented in this module analyzes the contents of each ACEin CUM_AUTH_LIST during which it evaluates the permission specified soas to determine the specific system-level operation that maps to thepermission specified. For example, the Write Property permission maps tothe Modify Attribute system-level operation on an object. In addition italso analyzes the type of access authorized by the ACE i.e. allowed ordenied, and it additionally analyzes any optional access qualificationsthat may be present in the ACE, such as whether the basic system-leveloperation applies to a specific aspect of the resource, such as a singleattribute or a set of attributes etc.

For each ACE analyzed, the logic implemented in this module creates anew 4-tuple combination which is comprised of {SysLvlPp;Unique_Object_Id; AcTp; AcQl}, wherein SysLvlOp refers to the specificsystem-level operation authorized, Unique_Object_Id refers to the uniqueidentifier of the resource that the ACE serves to protect, and AcTp(short-form for access-type) denotes the nature of the authorizationintent i.e. allowed or denied, and AcQl (short-form foraccess-qualifier) which may contain any optional qualifications, such asthe unique identity of an attribute or a set of attributes or a uniqueclass of objects etc. to which the authorized system-level operation isrestricted.

Each of these 4-tuple combinations {SysLvlOp; Unique_Object_Id; AcTp;AcQl} is added to a new list called SYS_LVL_AUTH_OPS_LIST. Thus, eachentry in this list specifies a specific system-level operation that isauthorized for this user, specifies the unique resource on which thisoperation is authorized, denotes whether the system-level operationauthorization is allowed or denied and finally specifies anyqualifications pertaining to the system level operation authorized.

Note that thus far the contents of the SYS_LVL_AUTH_OPS_LIST togethercomprise the set of all system-level operations authorized for this useron a set of resources.

There could arise a situation wherein there exists an entry inSYS_LVL_AUTH_OPS_LIST that explicitly allows the execution of a specificsystem-level operation on a specific resource and there exists anotherentry that explicitly denies the execution of the same system-leveloperation on the same resource. In such a situation, the resultant oreffective access would be a function of the rules implemented in theunderlying information or operating system that determine howconflicting permissions are handled. For examples in certain operatingsystems, the rules would allow a deny permission to have precedence overthe same allow permission.

The logic implemented in this module enforces the rules implemented inthe underlying information or operating system that determine howconflicting permissions are handled. The knowledge of these rules isimplemented in logic before hand by the designers of the system.

-   -   Note: The static implementation of such operating system        specific access check pertinent rules in the system is not an        architectural limitation of the system. If the underlying        information or operating system provides the means by which the        knowledge of such rules can be dynamically determined, the        system is designed to be able to dynamically learn of and        implement such rules.

In a similar manner, the logic implemented in this module takes intoaccount all pertinent aspects of the access check algorithms implementedin the underlying information or operating systems to ensure that themethodology of assessing effective access in effect simulates the accesscheck methodologies implemented in the underlying information oroperating systems, in that the outcome of the effective simulationmatches the outcome of the actual access check performed by theunderlying information/operating system for a given user and a givensecurable resource, or a set thereof.

-   -   Note: The static implementation of such operating system        specific access check pertinent rules in the system is by no        means an architectural limitation of the system. If the        underlying information or operating system provides the means by        which the knowledge of such rules can be dynamically determined,        the system, in some embodiments, may be capable of dynamically        learning of and implementing such rules.

Thus, the logic implemented in this module takes into account all accesscheck pertinent rules such as pertinent to permission conflictresolution rules, ACE precedence and effectiveness rules etc. in theunderlying information or operating system, so as to ensure that allauthorizations conflicts are resolved and as a result it generates a newlist called CUM_SYS_LVL_AUTH_OPS_LIST which contains a unique set ofonly those system-level operations that are effectively authorized i.e.allowed.

Each member of the new list, CUM_SYS_LVL_AUTH_OPS_LIST consists of a3-tuple {SysLvlOp; Unique_Object_Id; AcQl} which differs fromSYS_LVL_AUTH_OPS_LIST only in that the AcTp field is absent as it is nolonger needed. (It was only needed earlier for conflict resolutionbetween any entries that were identical in the 3-tuple {SysLvlOp;Unique_Object_Id; AcQl}.

In this manner, the logic implemented in this module determines theresultant or effective system level access authorized for the useracross the information or operating system.

For example, consider the following illustrative example. Assume that aspecific ACE on a node of type container in a directory serviceauthorizes the user the ability to create only objects of class userunderneath this container. The representation of this authorizationwould be expressed as follows in an entry in theCUM_SYS_LVL_AUTH_OPS_LIST—{CC, 3456778-5677889-32348976, user}. Here, CCis the SysLvlOp code for the Create Child system level operation,3456778-5677889-32348976 is the Unique_Object_Id that uniquelyrepresents the instance of this specific container node in the directoryservice, and user is the code used in the AcQl field to denote that theCreate Child system level operation code is further qualified to beauthorize only the creation of objects of class user.

Thus, at the end of the execution of the logic of this CumulativeSystem-Level Access Determination module, the contents ofCUM_SYS_LVL_AUTH_OPS_LIST represent the effective system level accessauthorized for the user across the information or operating system.

-   -   Note: It may be noted that the need to determine the        system-level operation authorized by some permission in an        authorization intent specification does not represent an        architectural limitation of the system. If the nature of        permissions used in the underlying operating system is such that        there is either a one to one correspondence between the        permission specified and the corresponding system-level        operations authorized, or there exists a one to one        correspondence between the permission specified and the        corresponding administrative task entitled, then the need to        determine the set of all system-level operations may be        obviated, since the system could directly use a set of mappings        from permissions to administrative tasks. In either case though,        there will still a need to determine the effective permission on        a securable resource taking into account the set of all        authorization intent specifications that protect that securable        resource. If it is the case that there is a one to one        correspondence between the permission specified and the        corresponding system-level operations authorized, then in effect        the permission substitutes for the system-level operation in the        mapping table, thereby obviating the need to determine the        system-level operations but not obviating the need to then        determine the effective permissions on that securable resource.

After the logic implemented by this module has successfully determinedthe user's cumulative system level access across the specified scope, itproceeds to invoke the Cumulative Access Entitlement Inference &Assimilation module.

FIG. 18 discloses a flow chart which describes the operation of theCumulative Entitlement Inference & Assimilation module.

This figure serves to describe the logic implemented in an embodiment ofa Cumulative Entitlement Inference & Assimilation module.

The logic implemented in this module begins by either dynamicallygenerating or loading a static pre-defined list of system-leveloperation to administrative task mappings, into memory. This list isthen held in the global variable SYSLVL_OP_TO_ADMIN_TASK_MAPPINGS.

The SYSLVL_OP_TO_ADMIN_TASK_MAPPINGS contains a set of target resourcespecific system-level operation to administrative task mappings. Inparticular, the list contains one entry for each combination of (i) anoperating system specific class/type of resource, (ii) a system-leveloperation and (iii) an optional access qualifier. For each such entry,there exists a task code and a task description for the administrativetask that corresponds to this combination.

The optional access qualifier provides the means to take into accountthe optional qualification of specified access, such as therepresentation of the unique identity of an attribute or a set ofattributes or a unique class of objects etc. to which the authorizedsystem-level operation is restricted.

Thus, each entry of this list takes the form:

[Target Type: System Level Operation: Access Qualifier: Task Code Id:“Task Description”]

The following is what the contents of an entry in the list looks like interms of fields used above:

[Target_Type: SysLvlOp: AcQl: AdmTskCd: AdmTskDesc]

The following is an illustrative example of what an actual list wouldlook like:

Directory Service Container Class Object: CC (Create-Child): User: 01:“Create a user account” Directory Service Container Class Object: CCCreate-Child: Group: 02: “Create a security group” Directory ServiceUser Class Object: SD (Delete): NULL: 03: “Delete a user account”Directory Service Group Class Object: SD (Delete): NULL: 04: “Delete agroup account” Directory Service Group Class Object: RP (Read Attrib):Member: 05: “Query a group's membership” Directory Service Group ClassObject: WP (Modify Attrib): Member: 06: “Modify a group's membership” .. . Directory Service User Class Object: WP (Modify Attrib):Acct-Status: 26: “Disable a user account” . . . File System File Object:SD (Delete): NULL: 89: “Delete File” . . . System Security PolicyObject: WP (Modify Attrib): Logon-Behavior: 149: “Control System LogonBehavior”

In effect, the 5-tuple SYSLVL_OP_TO_ADMIN_TASK_MAPPINGS list contains2-tuple administrative task mappings {AdmTskCd: AdmTskDesc} for eachunique combination of the 3-tuple {Target_Type: SysLvlOp: AcQl}.

The logic implemented in this module proceeds to sequentially analyzeevery entry in the CUM_SYS_LVL_AUTH_OPS_LIST.

Note that each entry of the CUM_SYS_LVL_AUTH_OPS_LIST consists of the3-tuple {SysLvlOp; Unique_Object_Id, AcQl} where SysLvlOp specifies thespecific system-level operations that the user is authorized to performon the unique resource uniquely identified by Unique_Object_Id and whereAcQl may optionally contain specific information that qualifies thenature of authorization expressed for the system-level operation denotedby SysLvlOp.

The analysis of each entry in CUM_SYS_LVL_AUTH_OPS_LIST involves asimple determination of the operating system specific target type, ofthe target uniquely identified by Unique_Object_Id. This determinationis required to arrive at the 3-tuple {Target_Type: SysLvlOp: AcQl} fromthe 3-tuple {SysLvlOp; Unique_Object_Id, AcQl}. This simpledetermination can be made by binding to i.e. accessing the unique objectidentified by Unique_Object_Id and determining its specific class/objecttype. This determined value is then stored in the Target_Type.

Once the Target_Type determination has been made the logic implementedin this module has sufficient information to use the mappings in theSYSLVL_OP_TO_ADMIN_TASK_MAPPINGS list to determine the administrativetask that corresponds to the unique combination of (i) Target_Type, thespecific class or type of resource/object that the resource uniquelyidentified by Unique_Object_Id, (ii) SysLvlOp, the specific system-leveloperation and (iii) AcQl field, which may contain specific informationthat qualifies the nature of authorization expressed for thesystem-level operation denoted by SysLvlOp.

The logic implemented in this module then proceeds to use theSYSLVL_OP_TO_ADMIN_TASK_MAPPINGS list to determine the administrativetask that corresponds to the unique combination of {Target_Type:SysLvlOp: AcQl} for each entry.

In particular, the logic uses the 3-tuple combination {Target_Type:SysLvlOp: AcQl} to determine the specific administrative task thatcorresponds to this combination. It then takes the description of theadministrative task, AdmTskDesc and the administrative task's uniquecode, AdmTskCd, and adds the 3-tuple {AdmTskCd, AdmTskDesc,Unique_Object_Id} to the CUM_ENT_LIST (also a global variable availableto all modules).

The above mentioned sequential analysis process is performed for everyentry in CUM_SYS_LVL_AUTH_OPS_LIST.

The logic implemented in this module then proceeds to eliminate anyduplicate 3-tuple combinations of {AdmTskCd, AdmTskDesc,Unique_Object_Id} in CUM_ENT_LIST. Duplicates could arise if there couldpotentially exist multiple overlapping authorized system-leveloperations that all effectively authorize the same administrative task.

At the end of the logic implemented by this module, the CUM_ENT_LISTcontains a unique list of all administrative tasks that the user isentitled to performing and additionally lists all the targets on whichthe user can perform a specific administrative task.

-   -   NOTE: It may be noted that there is no strict requirement to use        a static pre-defined list. For example, if the operating system        underlying an information system provides the means by which the        mappings between system-level operations (as authorized by the        presence of corresponding permissions in ACEs) and corresponding        high-level administrative tasks can be dynamically determined by        the access assessment system, then such a facility would obviate        the need for a hard-coded list. In the presence of such a        facility, the logic implemented in this module would in some        embodiments proceed to dynamically generate this list. In the        absence of such a facility though, a static pre-defined list is        required to map permissions to administrative tasks.

In regards to the putting together of a pre-defined static list, thedesigners of this system may avail of a variety of means to put thislist together. Such means may include but not be limited to theinclusion of authoritative information secured from publisheddocumentation from the vendors of the operating systems, experimentallyobtained knowledge of such mappings etc.

In this manner, the logic of this module successfully determines theuser's cumulative set of entitlements. After the logic implemented bythis module has successfully determined the user's cumulative set ofentitlements, it proceeds to invoke the Invoke Cumulative EntitlementReporting (Output) module.

FIG. 19 discloses a flow chart which describes the operation of theCumulative Entitlement Reporting (Output) module.

This figure serves to describe the logic implemented in an embodiment ofa Cumulative Entitlement Reporting (Output) module.

The logic implemented in this module begins by sorting the CUM_ENT_LISTby the administrative task codes, which are stored in the fieldAdmTaskCd.

Note: The sort operation is not a strict requirement. It is merelyintended to provide sorted output to the client of the assessmentsystem.

Then, for each entry in CUM_ENT_LIST, the logic implemented in thismodule proceeds to print the description of the administrative task,available in the AdmTskDesc field and it additionally prints theuser-friendly name of the object on which the administrative task isentitled. It determines the user-friendly name of the object by bindingto the object uniquely identified by Unique_Object_Id and determiningthe object's user-friendly name.

When it is done processing this list, the output of this process maylook similar to that depicted in FIG. 20

In this manner, the logic of this module successfully outputs the user'scumulative set of entitlements to the client. After the logicimplemented by this module has been successfully output, control ispassed back to the control flow engine which may decide to end thisassessment process or optionally allow the user to perform an assessmentfor another user.

FIG. 20 depicts a sample of the cumulative assessment report that thissystem might furnish to the client of this system.

This figure depicts a fictional sample cumulative assessment report thetype of which an embodiment of this system might furnish to the clientof this system.

As is illustrated, the cumulative entitlement assessment method andsystem provides a list of all administrative tasks that a specific userof the system is entitled to performing, by virtue of the presence of avery large number of individual authorization intent specifications thatexist across a large number of information and IT assets located onvarious hosts and in various file-systems, databases and directoriesetc. that the information system is comprised of.

It may be noted that the information furnished is meaningful, highlyactionable and valuable to all administrators in the system.

The invention claimed is:
 1. A method, performed by a computer, withregard to analyzing cumulative entitlements in an information systemincluding a plurality of users, each user having a corresponding useraccount, the information system including a plurality of securitygroups, each security group including a subset of the users or othersecurity groups, and wherein the information system includes a pluralityof securable assets, each securable asset corresponding to an accesscontrol list, each access control list including access control entriesthat identify at least one security group or user account having accessto the corresponding securable asset, wherein the securable assetsinclude the user accounts, the method comprising: in the computer,determining which security groups directly include or transitivelyinclude a given one of the users; in the computer, determining a set ofaccess control lists that identify any of the security groups or thegiven user; in the computer, determining an effective system-levelaccess granted to the given user in view of the access control entriesin the set of access control lists, wherein determining the effectivesystem-level access includes resolving any access conflicts as afunction of operating system rules or according to access checkmethodologies, wherein an access check methodology is defined as theprocess by which access control mechanisms of the information systemprotect the securable assets, by subjecting a user's access request to agiven securable asset, to an access check that processes the user'ssecurity affiliations as defined by the security groups and the accesscontrol list corresponding to the given securable asset to determinewhether to allow the access requested; and in the computer, mapping theeffective system-level access granted to the given user intoadministrative tasks to determine a cumulative access entitlement setfor the given user, wherein the cumulative access entitlement setincludes administrative tasks that the given user is entitled to performwith regard to the securable assets corresponding to the set of accesscontrol lists.
 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising determininga cumulative set of all tasks that all users in the information systemare authorized to perform, in at least a portion of the informationsystem.
 3. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining asubset of the users that are entitled to perform a specificadministrative task in at least a portion of the information system. 4.The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a set of theaccess control lists that authorize a second given one of the users toperform a specific administrative task.
 5. The method of claim 1,further comprising determining a set of all securable assets that aspecific one of the users is authorized access to across at least aportion of the information system.
 6. The method of claim 4, furthercomprising determining whether the set of access control lists were apart of a default (system vendor specified) entitlements conferred uponthe users of the information system.
 7. The method of claim 1, furthercomprising determining excessive entitlements granted to the given user,wherein the determination of excessive entitlements involves comparing aset of intended access entitlements with the given user's cumulativeaccess entitlement set.
 8. The method of claim 1, further comprisingwhether the given user's cumulative access entitlement set is incompliance with a business security policy governing a protection of thesecurable assets.
 9. The method of claim 1, further comprisingdetermining security vulnerabilities that exist as a result of the givenuser's cumulative access entitlement set.
 10. The method of claim 1,further comprising determining a set of security privilege escalationpaths that exist across at least a portion of the information system asa result of a presence of insecure access control lists pertaining tothe given user's cumulative access entitlement set.
 11. The method ofclaim 1, further comprising modifying a state of an assessed entitlementfor the given user.
 12. The method of claim 1, further comprisingdetermining access related security risk indicators, across at least aportion of the information system.
 13. The method of claim 1, furthercomprising determining time-period based differences in the cumulativeentitlements for the given user.
 14. The method of claim 1, furthercomprising reporting the given user's cumulative access entitlement setto a client of the information system.
 15. The method of claim 1,wherein at least some of the information for determining the givenuser's cumulative entitlement set is obtained on a secure channel.
 16. Acomputer-implemented system for analyzing cumulative entitlements in aninformation system including a plurality of users, each user having acorresponding user account, the information system including a pluralityof security groups, each security group including a subset of the usersor other security groups, and wherein the information system includes aplurality of securable assets, each securable asset corresponding to anaccess control list, each access control list including access controlentries that identify at least one security group or user account havingaccess to the corresponding securable asset, wherein the securableassets include the user account, comprising: a computing deviceconfigured to, for a given one of the users, determine which securitygroups directly include or transitively include the given user; thecomputing device being further configured to determine a set of accesscontrol lists that identify any of the security groups or the givenuser; the computing device being further configured to determine aneffective system-level access granted to the given user in view of theaccess control entries in the set of access control lists, wherein thedetermination of the effective system-level access includes resolvingany access conflicts as a function of operating system rules oraccording to access check methodologies, wherein an access checkmethodology is defined as the process by which access control mechanismsof the information system protect the securable assets, by subjecting auser's access request to a given securable asset, to an access checkthat processes the user's security affiliations as defined by thesecurity groups and the access control list corresponding to the givensecurable asset to determine whether to allow the access requested; andthe computing device being further configured to map the effectivesystem-level access granted to the given user into administrative tasksto determine a cumulative access entitlement set for the given user,wherein the cumulative access entitlement set includes administrativetasks that the given user is entitled to perform with regard to thesecurable assets corresponding to the set of access control lists. 17.The system of claim 16, wherein the computing device is furtherconfigured to determine a cumulative set of all tasks that all users inthe information system are authorized to perform, in at least a portionof the information system.
 18. The system of claim 16, wherein thecomputing device is further configured to determine a subset of theusers that are entitled to perform a specific administrative task in atleast a portion of the information system.
 19. The system of claim 16,wherein the computing device is further configured to determine a set ofthe access control lists that authorize a second given one of the usersto perform a specific administrative task.
 20. The system of claim 16,wherein the computing device is further configured to determine the setof all securable assets that a specific one of the users is authorizedsome form of access to across at least a portion of the informationsystem.
 21. The system of claim 16, wherein the computing device isfurther configured to determine whether the set of access control listswere a part of a default (system vendor specified) entitlementsconferred upon the users of the information system.
 22. The system ofclaim 16, wherein the computing device is further configured todetermine excessive entitlements granted to the given user, wherein thedetermination of excessive entitlements involves comparing a set ofintended access entitlements with the given user's cumulative accessentitlement set.
 23. The system of claim 16, wherein the computingdevice is further configured to determine whether the given user'scumulative access entitlement set is in compliance with a businesssecurity policy governing a protection of the securable assets.
 24. Thesystem of claim 16, wherein the computing device is further configuredto determine security vulnerabilities that exist as a result of thegiven user's cumulative access entitlement set.
 25. The system of claim16, wherein the computing device is further configured to determinesecurity privilege escalation paths that exist across at least a portionof the information system; as a result of a presence of insecure accesscontrol lists pertaining to the given user's cumulative accessentitlement set.
 26. The system of claim 16, wherein the computingdevice is further configured to modify a state of an assessedentitlement for the given user.
 27. The system of claim 16, wherein thecomputing device is further configured to determine access relatedsecurity risk indicators, across at least a portion of the informationsystem.
 28. The system of claim 16 wherein the computing device isfurther configured to determine time-period based differences in thecumulative entitlements for the given user.